On 2010/10/29 (Oct), at 6:22 AM, GitHub wrote:
From: toad This will not be merged, period.
It needs a little more work anyway :)
We do not make significant changes to routing without detailed simulations. The Least Recently Used policy used for opennet has been extensively simulated and while it is not proven, there is also a very strong mathematical basis for it. There is every reason to think that it should perform well, in other words, and automatically establish a small world topology. Plus, it trades off performance against location in a way which is simple and avoids any need for extra layers of performance evaluation separate to optimising locations.
You might be right if LRU was the only factor. However, I think that the announcement algorithm accounts for 95% of peer selection.
In my experience, nodes announce... get peers at the given location... and then are forevermore content with the announce-gathered peers. LRU would only have the effect that you state if we routinely dropped the lowest peer (in such a way that they could not just reconnect).
Finally, I don't believe routing is the problem limiting performance on the current network. The distribution of incoming requests is usually very specialised, for example.
Incoming requests are specialized, that's true! But this indicates that *those requests that get to us* are specialized. The overall CHK success rate is a better measure of network health IMO.
It's too bad that there is not a way to experiment on the whole network without negatively effecting it; e.g. it would be *very* bad if a routing change prevented update-over-freenet. I guess we could run two parallell networks, but would require reduplicating much code.
-- Robert Hailey _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
