Matthew Toseland schrieb: > On Thursday 01 January 2009 17:20, Ian Clarke wrote: >> On Thu, Jan 1, 2009 at 6:16 PM, Florent Daigni?re >> <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: >>>> 2008/12/31 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>: >>>> I'd say lets raise the threshold, perhaps to 40. The arguments >>>> against it seem a bit handwavey to justify denying functionality that >>>> our user's clearly want. Upload bandwidth is the life-blood of P2P >>>> networks, we should use every scrap of it we can get. >>>> >>> At the moment we don't use it, we *waste* it. What about improving the >>> payload ratio first? >> What about doing both? I'm assuming we're talking about changing >> constants here - a 30 second job. > > Whereas improving the payload is considerably harder. > > However, it would likely make sense to have a sliding scale? 40 peers on a > node with only 12K/sec would be madness... IMHO no node should have less than > 10 peers, the question is at what point do we start adding more? Some nodes > max out 50K/sec with only 20 peers ... > > Maybe: > 0-10K/sec : 10 peers > 10K/sec to 70K/sec: add one peer for every 2KB/sec? > > So 16K/sec (half of 256kbps) gives 13 peers, 28K/sec (half of 448kbps) gives > 19 peers, 55K/sec (half of 892kbps) gives 32 peers, 70K+ gives 40 peers. > > (These are the most common upstream bandwidths in the UK, divided by two as > we > do). > > Thoughts? > > We probably should get some input on this from a theoretical perspective. >> Ian.
This would give many german users between 10 (15K/sec up) to 13 (30K/sec up) peers, if you only set half of the bandwidth. So if you do this change, you should make sure that freenet does work good _and_ reliable with 10 peers. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 315 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090102/032f3969/attachment.pgp>
