Ian Clarke wrote: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 theCould you point me to something that justifies this? I don't understand how this can me true.
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.
Well, it should really be self-evident if you look at what NGR is trying to do. NGR works by estimating which node will have the lowest response time, and routing to that node. Obviously, the difference between the estimated and actual response times will be lower if the estimate is better, and thus this averaged over time will tell us how well NGR is estimating routing times, and therefore how optimal its decisions are likely to be.
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.
Well, the average of the difference (ie. never negative), yes.
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.
I don't claim that this will allow us to judge the performance of all aspects of the node's operation, but it would allow us to measure how well NGR is making its routing decisions.
Ian.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
