On Friday 03 May 2013 13:31:04 Michael Grube wrote: > > > > Also, the reality may be even worse: Even without attackers, churn in the > > network causes "natural" degeneration; we randomise periodically to try to > > correct this. > > > > Note that we are probably immune to their third attack due to using a > > commit/reveal on swapping. However the first two are real enough and can't > > be beaten by commit/reveal. > > > > We could implement this tomorrow. What exactly do we need to determine > > before doing so? We could validate the implementation, and compare it to > > current swapping, in a many-nodes-one-VM simulator (we can simulate approx > > 100 to 500 "real" nodes on one high end system). > > > > That's interesting. What do you consider high end? If it will actually > help, I'll rent some cloud hardware. I'm not sure about supporting 10,000 > nodes, but maybe 2 or 3 thousand from me.
Relatively high CPU and RAM. It's only needed because we still encrypt, of course. We could make this much more efficient by modifying the node a bit. Obviously we slow things down a lot, run relatively few requests, small stores etc. See freenet/node/simulator/RealNode*Test Note that I've never distributed this between multiple systems... It's a spectacularly inefficient simulation, but since it uses the real code, it's useful for sanity checking. Might be worth making it more efficient in future...
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] https://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
