On December 02, 2003 08:23 pm, Toad wrote: > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 05:44:18PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > On December 02, 2003 04:59 pm, Toad wrote: > > > On Tue, Dec 02, 2003 at 04:56:41PM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > > > > Hi > > > > > > > > How about this. > > > > > > > > We keep one number: long estimateLimit; > > > > > > > > We accept a request if the best estimate in the routing object better > > > > than the limit. > > > > > > > > If the load is higher than our HighLoadLimit we decrease > > > > estimateLimit and if its lower than our LoadLoadLimit we increace > > > > estimateLimit (say using .95 and 1.05 to start with). > > > > > > More lovely alchemy. But the main concern is as Ian's load balancing > > > scheme - how do you prevent the estimateLimit from getting really high > > > or really low and taking ages to recover. > > > > Yes, but on the other hand it requires no queue and adds no latency... > > estimateLimit > > Toast's proposal also requires no queue and adds no latency. And is > better.
Fine. Would you like me to implement it so you can work on something else? First step iteration would not try to add Martin's logic for taking into account nodes that come out of backoff. Ed _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
