Okay, first things first. I have put a change in which I believe will significantly increase insert performance. It goes as follows: - Inserts visit many more nodes than requests. - Therefore they take longer - the round-trip-time part of the throttle is higher. - They also have a much higher chance of running into an overloaded node at some point during the request, so the window will also be much greater.
IMHO they are being excessively and unduly penalized, so I have changed the load limiting system to have a single window tracker for all types of requests, and per-type round-trip-time's. Is this reasonable? If you accept the above, then we have another problem: If the user starts the node and does an insert, the above change is subverted; there are inserts happening but no requests, so even if we remember what our window size was before, it will rapidly get smaller due to only doing inserts. The problem is lack of information. If we allow all requests to contribute to the window size, then we have more information, more accurate limiting, and faster inserts. BTW congrats on getting PGP working. On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 11:42:16AM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA1 > > > On 11 Apr 2006, at 09:15, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > >Which requests should count for load limiting? > > > >Load limiting is the process whereby if we get a RejectedOverload or a > >timeout we reduce the rate at which we send (locally originated) > >requests, and if we don't, we increase it. > > > >The original intention I think, based loosely on the TCP-over-Ethernet > >metaphor, was to only count locally originated requests. So if we > >get a > >timeout on any other request, this doesn't affect the rate at which we > >send requests. > > > >Is this the best option? It is perhaps closest to "propagate the load > >back to the originator"? But maybe more information - counting other > >requests - would be better? > > We should not change this, we need to keep it simple - only > introducing further complexity if there is a *clear* justification. > I don't see a clear justification here. > > Ian. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.2.2 (Darwin) > > iD8DBQFEO/iLQtgxRWSmsqwRApq3AJ0brx1vu7aK1WtZhgyxl95wmxhl2wCeMaVm > i9RW9QqbzcE2vpalivRTryY= > =SM3m > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20060411/0cc80259/attachment.pgp>
