On Sun, Nov 02, 2003 at 11:59:50PM +0000, Ian Clarke wrote: > Martin Stone Davis wrote > >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.
It would not be an absolute measure. We could use it to compare one build to the next, after we had a node up for a significant period of time, though. > > It won't be a pancea, for example, it won't be concerned with issues > like QRs or load balancing, but it will give a specific picture of the > most fundamental aspect of Freenet's performance. No, the fundamental is inserting and requesting as I said in another mail. > > 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
