Von: "Matthew Toseland" <[email protected]> >But the other question is, can queueing ever be helpful? It can if it allows >us to route more accurately (which NLM clearly does), and/or to run enough >requests in parallel that the longer time taken for the request to reach its >destination is offset. Is this condition met?
Experience with the deployed NLM showed that even in the fully congested case it had success rates of 60% for HTL 18,17 and 16, compared to less than 40% for OLM. This means that the requests are sent over fewer hops on average, because find the content fewer hops away from the requester. A download of 1MiB which is sent over 2 hops needs 2 MiB in total network bandwidth. If it is sent over only 1.5 hops on average, then it needs only 1.5 MiB total network bandwidth. So essentially NLM can distribute 30% more content with the same network resources¹. And these numbers are actual observations. The only reason why this did not result in increased performance is that the nodes used less than 50% of their allocated bandwidth² - which is a problem with the bandwidth scheduler and not with queueing. Best wishes, Arne ¹: The relevant network resource is upload bandwidth. ²: Source: observations from me and two other freenet users. PS: How exactly the bandwidth limiter is fixed is an implementation detail. I think you are actually the only person who can judge how to do this most efficiently. ___________________________________________________________ Schon gehört? WEB.DE hat einen genialen Phishing-Filter in die Toolbar eingebaut! http://produkte.web.de/go/toolbar
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
