Oskar writes:
On Wed, 12 Apr 2000, Mike Glover wrote:
<snip>
> If the keys
> we`re comparing are basically random strings, what are the benefits of
> closeness over random routing?
I`m sorry dude, but it looks like that is an F in Freenet Theory A1
right
there.
The idea is if that Inserts and Requests are sorted the same way, it
does not
actually matter if the closeness actually means anything in the context
of the
data, it still provides a way to send a Request to a place where:
a) The Insert would also have gone
b) Other requests would have gone, so the data would be continually
updated in
the cache there
Hmm, it sounds like the protocol spec author gets an F, too. The protocol
document claims that a node may use "whatever closeness measure it wants."
However, all the nodes need to agree on a closeness measure to get the most out
of the routing mechanism.
WHICH MEANS, the spec needs a precise, detailed, and
humanly-intelligible description of the closeness metric/algorithm.
I'm not sure I really understand it, even after reading the source,
so I'll go willy-nilly here and propose one: simply order the keys by
alphabetical order, with "FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF"'s
(or "zzzz....") wrapping around to 0. It's an easy order to explain,
and is moderately close to what the code seems to use now -- assuming
an evenly distributed keyspace, a series of "close" guesses by the two
algorithms will have about half of their keys in common.
_______________________________________________
Freenet-dev mailing list
Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net
http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
