On Tuesday 05 May 2009 18:05:22 Robert Hailey wrote: > > On May 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: > > > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > > <t...@amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > >> 1. Release the 20 nodes barrier (206 votes) > >> > >> As I have mentioned IMHO this is a straightforward plea for more > >> performance. > > > > I'll reiterate a point I've made before. > > > > While this represents a simple plea for performance, I don't think > > it's an irrational one -- that is, I think the overall network > > performance is hampered by having all nodes have the same number of > > connections. > > > > Because all connections use similar amounts of bandwidth, the network > > speed is limited by the slower nodes. This is true regardless of the > > absolute number of connections; raising the maximum for fast nodes > > should have a very similar effect to lowering it for slow nodes. What > > matters is that slow nodes have fewer connections than fast nodes. > > I'm not saying that it's wrong, but the 20 node barrier is a bit > arbitrary... we find ourselves talking about performance, bandwidth, > and a constant. > > I could see a bandwidth-limited node totally choking with only a few > connections, and certainly even an 'uber-node'/unlimited bandwidth > would reach a point where adding extra peers would be of no benefit. > > Perhaps there are even just a minority of nodes on the network that > are actually making it slow (seeing that a request may travel through > ~20 nodes). Is it possible that some nodes have too many peers for > there bandwidth setting? would it make a difference?
If so, it's a bug: if they are a minority they should simply get backed off.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
