On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 11:24:42AM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > Tracy R Reed wrote: > >On Mon, Nov 03, 2003 at 09:41:23AM +0000, Ian Clarke spake thusly: > >toad, last week I think. I don't have the IRC logs hanging around. > > Well, toad is big enough and ugly enough to defend his own statements. > > >>By that argument almost none of non-symbolic AI would work since > >>frequently it finds solutions to problems which are extremely difficult > >>for people to decipher. > >But people understand how those things work and they know what they are > >supposed to do and they usually know when they are actually working. > > As do we. > > >There > >is code in freenet which actively promotes specialization and which routes > >to other nodes based on their specialization betting that the chances of > >that node having the data are greater than others. > > To the extent that there is such code, it probably shouldn't be there. > It may have belonged in pre-NGR since that did tend to have simple > specialization but it didn't have to worry about network latencies and > things like.
Hmm. What code is there? Are you talking about pcaching? That is supposed to enhance routing generally... > > > That stuff does not yet seem to be working. > > What is "working"? You don't know that most of the current DNFs aren't > legitimate, some probably aren't. If you want to be constructive why > not join the discussion about a better way to determine Freenet's > performance rather than going on and on about psuccess when we all know > that it isn't a good performance measure? We have a better performance measure, which Tracy suggested and I implemented. It's called routingSuccessRatioCHK. So far it looks pretty bad on my node... Of course it's only a better measure if people don't poll CHKs, but zab tells me that Frost hasn't for two months and most Frost users upgrade very regularly. > > >Don't get me wrong, I'm patient and I know this stuff > >is hard. I just don't want anyone to think freenet meets expectations for > >a functioning network. :) > > "functioning" is pretty objective, Freenet is functioning, but that > doesn't mean that it doesn't have much potential for improvement. > > >You almost confused me a second time because I was about to pull up my > >datastore histogram. You asked me this question on IRC once. I'll tell you > >the same thing I told you then: Linux is the "CHK" or "key" of the > >information at the center of my specialization. Logistics and aircraft > >maintenance is the CHK of my fathers. Networking is the CHK of my > >roommates. I know what they specialize in and I route to them > >appropriately when I need something in that area. If nobody specialized in > >anything in the real world we would have problems. > > Ok, and do you suppose a histogram of you, your father's, or your > roommate's specializations would be clear cut and obvious, or do you > suppose that your "common sense" knowledge would probably obscure what > you perceive to be your own specialization were it to be drawn as a > histogram? > > >No, I'm not. But I bet that when people write code for non-symbolic AI > >they know how the code is supposed to work and what the end result should > >look like. > > Yes, and in this case we do too - the end result is that Freenet finds > data when it exists, and the accuracy of the routing code can be > measured by comparing actual to estimated response times. I suppose I will implement this eventually. But it will only be useful for comparing two builds - the variability will be so high that you can't say a given delta is reasonable. > > > The credit card company expects their code to actually find > >fraud. If it didn't appear to turn up fraud and the programmer said, "Oh, > >this is just non-obvious fraud" he wouldn't be taken very seriously. :) > > Freenet does find stuff. Freenet doesn't always find stuff. When > Freenet doesn't find stuff it isn't always Freenet's fault because > sometimes the stuff doesn't exist. My last statement does not imply > that any time Freenet doesn't find stuff that it isn't Freenet's fault. > Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? > > Anyway, if you want to help stop griping and join the thread about > better ways to measure Freenet's performance. One good way is the latency test that somebody posted here recently. Insert a file, get one other node to request it. If you can do this in a single retry 90% of the time, Freenet is working. If you can do it in a reasonable overall round-trip time, Freenet is working fast. > > Ian. -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
