I always suspect things which seem to others so obvious... There seems to be the missleading concept that inserts have to be slower than downloads. The argument is: it needs to go over more hops therefore it is slower. I have discussed this issue, and I think its obvious that this is not true...
Yes the latency is much bigger than with a download, but that doesnt mean we can transfer less blocks in the same time. lets say: insert chain 2 hops for simplicity. O P Q are blocks X is idle O - X - X P - O - X Q - P - O X - Q - P X - X - Q As you can see, I insert the blocks one by one, they don't block each other, so the length of the chain is no argument for bandwith usage. It is an argument for latency, but not for bandwith. (in a network without congestion) yes you are right we might get in conflict with other downloads/inserts, but if we get a share of the bandwith for inserts on every node we should have the same throughput as downloads (but using more bandwith of the overall network but in serial). (because every block is independend, calculation would be probably very simple) Now again the question, why inserts have to be slower than downloads? _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
