Martin Stone Davis wroteCould you point me to something that justifies this? I don't understand how this can me true.
Tracy R Reed wrote:
If you expect only a .08% psuccess and barely a hint of specialization
that's fine but I rather expected a bit more. :) My psuccess is slowly
creaping up (it was .02% for so long) so hopefully it's just a matter of
time and the convergence is slow due to bandwidth limitations we all have
but I am hoping for quite a bit more, especially in the routing area which
freenet so depends on.
Is psuccess really a good measure of node/network health? IIRC, others have said it is not.
As I have said on a few occasions, the best measurement we could have of NGR's performance would be a mean difference between estimated and actual response times. This measures exactly how well NGR is doing the
job it is supposed to be doing, and can thus be used to guage the effectiveness of modifications to the NGR algorithm in terms of their effect on routing.
From what I understand, for every key requested, you would measure how long we estimated tSuccess, and then subtract the actual time for success. You then take the average of all these.
But so what? There's no reason to think that this average would be larger in build 6264 (where we picked the worst possible node) than in the later corrected versions. My eHealth, however, would measure such a difference.
Perhaps I don't understand what you meant?
-Martin
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
