On Tue, Apr 29, 2003 at 09:35:25PM -0500, Edgar Friendly wrote: > To: devl at freenetproject.org > Subject: Re: [freenet-dev] (no subject) > References: <20030422040021.35869181BA6 at thelema.dyndns.org> > <20030429221703.GA18191 at locut.us> > From: Edgar Friendly <thelema at swbell.net> > Date: 29 Apr 2003 21:35:25 -0500 > In-Reply-To: <20030429221703.GA18191 at locut.us> > Message-ID: <m2of2ohfv6.fsf at thelema.dyndns.org> > Lines: 35 > User-Agent: Gnus/5.09 (Gnus v5.9.0) Emacs/21.3 > MIME-Version: 1.0 > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii > > Ian Clarke <ian at locut.us> writes: > > > > > I think what's going on is that it is almost impossible for nodes to > > > > route over uncached connections. > > > > > > > /me feels very vindicated about his suggestions to have fred not even > > > try to route over uncached connections > > > > Er, I wouldn't pat yourself on the back too quickly. GJ is pointing out > > the damage caused by accidental implementation of your suggestion, how > > you interpret that as a vindication of your suggestion is somewhat > > beyond my deductive abilities. > > > > Ian. > > > > I can't figure out how to respond to GJ's "damage", because there's no > substance there to back it up. Are you sure you read what you quoted > properly?
"damage" meaning that a few nodes were serving a LOT of traffic and the rest were getting very little. > > My suggestion (and I hope people realize this) assumes some framework > behind the scenes to actually have connections to route over. > Optimally fred would keep active one connection (or two, if we can't multiplex > over a connection) to each node in the routing table. Suboptimally, > some limit on # of connections and a method of choosing what > connections to attempt so that normal routing is subverted the least. Well, because of our threading model, we are limited to 48 connections. And we open a connection when we route to a node that does not have a connection open. How do you propose to decide which nodes to open connections to, without actually opening connections to them? :) > > Given this assumption, it seems to me quite reasonable to skip routing > to nodes for which a connection hasn't been established. Why doesn't > it seem so to you? > > Thelema > -- > E-mail: thelema at swbell.net Raabu and Piisu > GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
