> > > From: > Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> > Date: > Sat, 26 Oct 2002 22:32:34 +0100 > > >On Sat, Oct 26, 2002 at 05:28:04PM -0400, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > >>>From: >>>Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> >>>Date: >>>Sat, 26 Oct 2002 14:21:25 +0100 >>> >>> >>> >>>>If a request comes in with an HTL below some dynamic threshold >>>>based on the average HTLs of the other queries in the queue, then >>>>it is considered desperate and is handled. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>No, we didn't do exactly that, preferring low HTLs is silly it >>> >>> >>>encourages bad behaviour. >>> >>> >>> >>When you have a minute (I realize that you are busy these days) could >>you elabourate on how encouraging low HTL requests in the network >>is silly. I would believe that the opposite is true and am curious what >>reasons you have to think the way you do. We already encourage lower >>HTLs by using the maxHTL setting in the configuration. >> >> >Because we do not want nodes to use low HTL requests to lots of nodes >rather than high HTL requests to one (or a few) nodes. >
Fish is right about inserts but I wasn't talking about inserts here. In my mind, inserts should never be rejected. Otherwise you will never know how many nodes your insert made it to. I don't know how the current code handles it. OK ... I can see how this scheme would make 5x5htl requests faster to do then 1x25htl request. If you truly want to favour long requests over short ones then reverse the HTL priority. You can just as easily favour high incoming HTLs in the connection queue this way as low ones. Mike _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
