On Wed, Jan 17, 2007 at 11:36:55AM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > Anyone feel like running some > > simulations to confirm the theory and the fix? > > OK, but we need to come up with a precise model of what's happening > before we can simulate it. There seem to be two possible causes: > non-uniform clustering and non-uniform lifetime (maybe both). > > Lifetime is relatively easy: assign each new node a lifetime drawn from > some distribution (fixed, exponential, power law seem like plausible > candidates). > > Clustering is harder: here's an initial suggestion adapted from [1]. > Each new node connects to m neighbours. The first neighbour is chosen at > random. Then for each of the m-1 remaining neighbours, with probability > p you choose a random neighbour of your existing neighbours (this > creates clustering); with probability 1-p you choose a random node. > > The value of p can be different for each node, so we can test what > happens when clustering is correlated with lifetime (ie long-lived nodes > form clusters and short-lived nodes are peripheral). > > Cheers, > Michael > > [1] http://nlsc.ustc.edu.cn/BJKim/PAPER/PRE_CLUS.PDF (the paper uses > preferential attachment and therefore creates scale-free networks, but > my suggestion above doesn't use preferential attachment)
Well, if we are actually getting a scale-free network that could be a problem too; small world != scale free, and scale free would actually work remarkably poorly for freenet. (I wonder if that is in fact what is happening? Hrrrm...) -------------- 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/20070117/7e870478/attachment.pgp>
