On Tue, Nov 25, 2003 at 08:56:41AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On November 25, 2003 07:42 am, Ian Clarke wrote: > > Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > > My node is accepting about 10% of requests. In my mind this it is not > > > working well at all. I think the backoff scheme in use is using alchemy. > > > ie. there is no predictable result - we just say it is working... > > > > Hmz, in that case - you are right, backoff isn't working as well as it > > should. > > > > We all know that backoff is alchemy, but we accept that given its > > simplicity and because it isn't part of the NGR algorithm (we have a > > non-alchemy solution but it is much more complicated). That isn't the > > problem - the important question is why are remote nodes continuing to > > pummel your node when they should be backing off...? We should add some > > logging to this effect (note when nodes send requests, and when we > > respond with QRs. See whether they are obeying the backoff rules, and > > if so, why that doesn't work, or if not, why not). > > Did you read my "Ideas for Backoff" post from Friday. If what I proposed can > be made to work, we would have a predictable and tunable solution. ie we could > choose the QR rate we wanted and have a node(s) converge towards that number.
A predictably crap solution that would punish nodes for being competent. > > Ed -- 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
