On Sunday 17 February 2002 13:28, Ian wrote:

> > On Sun, Feb 17, 2002 at 01:46:46PM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote:
> > Even if the data was written somewhere in the network, there is no
> > guarantee that it ended up in a place that makes sense routingwise.  The
> > network used to be so small that this didn't matter.  Now it does.
>
> Yes, but if you are using the same references to route the request then
> it doesn't matter whether the insert went in a sensible direction, the
> request will go in the same direction.
You are not guaranteed to use the same reference.  You might have inserted 
using a suboptimal ref because the "right one" QR'd your insert request.  You 
might requests from a different ref for the same reason.
>
> > > What realistic circumstance could result in the data
> > > not being found when the local data store is ignored after a successful
> > > insertion?
> >
> > If it fell out of the network or landed in a ridiculous place
> > routingwise.
>
> It is unlikely to fall out of the network in such a short space of time,
> 
Who said anything about time?  What if I want to check whether my freesite is 
retrievable 4 hours after I inserted it?
> and whether it is in a rediculous place routingwise won't make a
> difference if you are using the same set of references to route the
> request.
(See above)

>
> > In a perfect world yes.  We do not live in such a world.   The routing is
> > suboptimal. The problem is that most useful nodes are overloaded.
>
> I don't disagree, but I don't see why this would have a significant
> effect if I insert some data, then request it shortly afterwards while
> ignoring my local cache - unless it just so happens that the node to
> which the insert was routed is rejecting queries.
>
(See above)

> > Right now
> > my node is QueryRejecting all but ~=1500 of the 10000+ requests it
> > receives an hour.
>
> Yeah, I see this on hawk too, but the question is: why?  Surely for every
> node generating requests, there is a new node to handle those requests.
> Even Frost now has dramatically reduced the rate at which it requests
> stuff.
This is the real problem.

I don't know where the requests are coming from.

Tavin had an idea to make the routing punish excessive QR's better that I 
think he is going to implement.

--gj

-- 
Freesite
(0.4) freenet:SSK at npfV5XQijFkF6sXZvuO0o~kG4wEPAgM/homepage//

_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl

Reply via email to