On Sun, 2003-11-30 at 08:55, Ian Clarke wrote: > Ok, the new stable build seems to be working quite well, are other > people experiencing the same thing? > > We need to take stock of the situation with NGR. I think one problem > has been a willingness to dream up solutions, and implement them, before > actually understanding what the problem is. > Yes, although that was a consequence of the need to get it done yesterday...
> I would like to propose that now that the time-pressure is off, we try > to be more cautious - we need to form theories about what the problem > is, figure out how to test these theories, and if they prove true, > *then* we implement a solution. I agree. Meanwhile, perhaps Toad should be implementing obvious improvements independent of routing, such as connection multiplexing. Not that the theory that multiplexing would help should be exempt from testing. Another theory is that message traffic is larger than data traffic, and hence compressing the message traffic would be worthwhile. Hand crafted binary message formats, or Huffman encoding based on actual traffic, or even just gz or bz2 right before encription might help. > > One thing that is important is simply to figure out how accurate NGR's > estimates actually are, and whether their estimates are statistically > significant. Hear hear!! Some of the data may already be in the diagnostics, but it bears careful analysis. If the things we want to measure change drastically before we can get enough samples to average out the noise, we better figure out something else to measure. > Also, understanding which parts of the NGR estimate > calculation have the most bearing on the routing decision. > Lets get a clear understandable explanation written up. If I can understand it, I'll try writing it. -- Ed Huff
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
