On 6/19/06, Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 02:26:03PM -0500, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote:
> Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote:
> >* [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 ? :)
> >
> When I got back to my node after being away from it for 24 hours
> Saturday night, it was in what I call "backoff hell". I've seen
> "backoff hell" at least one other time. It's when all of your connected
> peers are backed off and every time one of them comes out of backoff, it
> goes right back into back off very quickly. I assume this is because my
> node is eager to send that node anything it has, no matter how misrouted
> it is. I don't recall from last time, but I must admit that this time,
> the reason was usually timeouts rather than overloads. You're right,
> the backoff threshold is so that nodes with fewer than 4 peers don't
> have this restriction.
Are you sure that it wasn't due to some external factor, like high CPU
usage, or network saturation?
>
> I agree that this is alchemy, but I figure it'll give a node more of a
> fighting chance of recovering from "backoff hell" and since that's the
> only time it'd apply, the impact otherwise should be nil. Perhaps some
> of the SoC work this summer will make such alchemy unneeded. However,
> just because it's alchemy doesn't mean it can't be useful.
Hmmm... I will have a look at it when I get around to reading the
commit...
--
Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.1 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFEl2DTHzsuOmVUoi0RAllBAJsHcZqWAGUL7px786TEPHwAiILvygCeNpBg
paJQpkaU+nvh65HNOL+nf74=
=HBVS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
This does seem to make "some" sense in that a 50/50 choice between two
routes should give better routing than no choice at all... It might
be what's needed to prevent a complete routing collapse or a feedback
loop, assuming everything else is bug-free.
--
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
