On May 4, 2009, at 11:29 AM, Evan Daniel wrote: > On Mon, May 4, 2009 at 11:33 AM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> 1. Release the 20 nodes barrier (206 votes) >> >> As I have mentioned IMHO this is a straightforward plea for more >> performance. > > I'll reiterate a point I've made before. > > While this represents a simple plea for performance, I don't think > it's an irrational one -- that is, I think the overall network > performance is hampered by having all nodes have the same number of > connections. > > Because all connections use similar amounts of bandwidth, the network > speed is limited by the slower nodes. This is true regardless of the > absolute number of connections; raising the maximum for fast nodes > should have a very similar effect to lowering it for slow nodes. What > matters is that slow nodes have fewer connections than fast nodes.
I'm not saying that it's wrong, but the 20 node barrier is a bit arbitrary... we find ourselves talking about performance, bandwidth, and a constant. I could see a bandwidth-limited node totally choking with only a few connections, and certainly even an 'uber-node'/unlimited bandwidth would reach a point where adding extra peers would be of no benefit. Perhaps there are even just a minority of nodes on the network that are actually making it slow (seeing that a request may travel through ~20 nodes). Is it possible that some nodes have too many peers for there bandwidth setting? would it make a difference? -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090505/ade5c6df/attachment.html>
