On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:01 PM, Matthew Toseland wrote: > It really isn't THAT slow. It's not a significant factor in the > network's > overall performance. > > On Friday 30 November 2007 18:49, Robert Hailey wrote: >> >> [...] that an SSK signature is verified at every node[...] would >> yield the same >> result 100% of the time.[...]
On Nov 30, 2007, at 1:04 PM, Robert Hailey wrote: > [...] I interpret as meaning that my node refuses requests primarily > because it is waiting on everyone else [...] To use an analogy from the recent Houston/Katrina-Rita evacuation, in relating to bandwidth. A single stoplight at the end of a major freeway is not a significant factor, unless of course there are 100,000 cars waiting at it. Even worse, make it two distantly-spaced stoplights, and no effective progress will be made. If it is was the case that all rejects are from bandwidth limitations, it would follow that the network was running at optimal capacity, only to be made better by re-arranging the utilization of the bandwidth. Or also if the network was mostly-idle, I suppose. Besides i/o (network/ disk), the other major latency is processing (crypto). My point is that while node X is verifying my request (which I'm going to be doing anyway), I must wait. And in waiting, requests are being dropped. I see the major problem at hand is that the time in-handling of packets must be minimized, as if we are all waiting on the slowest node, and for a slow-enough node, the cryptographic verification in a virtual machine would be slow indeed. This might even be an effective DDoS attack (accept-and-wait --> overload threads). Or else, the current system in-place may be like ethernet: beyond a point of congestion, it just doesn't work. -- Robert Hailey
