* [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006-06-18 19:02:38]: > Author: zothar > Date: 2006-06-18 19:02:33 +0000 (Sun, 18 Jun 2006) > New Revision: 9304 > > Modified: > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java > Log: > Mitigate "backoff hell" a bit by not routing to a peer if it's the only one > not backed off and we have a few backed off peers. >
That's what we call alchemy, isn't it ? :)
Well, I do see the point of not sending our requests when we have only
one online peer (even if there is plausible deniability) but why the
"backoff throwsold" ? to allow nodes with less than 4 peers to be usable
?
I'm not sure I agree to the concept, maybe I'm missing the point though,
may you explain ? :)
NextGen$
> Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java
> ===================================================================
> --- trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java 2006-06-18 17:35:22 UTC
> (rev 9303)
> +++ trunk/freenet/src/freenet/node/RequestSender.java 2006-06-18 19:02:33 UTC
> (rev 9304)
> @@ -113,6 +113,13 @@
> return;
> }
>
> + // Route starvation due to almost all backed off?
> +
> if(node.getPeerNodeStatusSize(Node.PEER_NODE_STATUS_CONNECTED) == 1 &&
> node.getPeerNodeStatusSize(Node.PEER_NODE_STATUS_ROUTING_BACKED_OFF) > 3) {
> + // Don't send everything to one node, that may have just
> come out of backoff, hopefully preventing backoff hell (the one emerging from
> backoff gets pounded back into backoff)
> + finish(ROUTE_NOT_FOUND, null);
> + return;
> + }
> +
> // Route it
> PeerNode next;
> double nextValue;
>
> _______________________________________________
> cvs mailing list
> [email protected]
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
