Hello Matt, I'm fully satisfied with the answers you just gave me. Thank you very much.
Julien. > Hi Julien, > > Thanks for your comments! You are right to say that if you use N to mean > exact number of nodes in the network at any time, you will move replicas > around a lot, and that would really suck! The idea is that N is an > estimate of the number of nodes in the network, and there is no need for > it to be exact. The value of N is used to guess at a distance between > replica IDs such that those replica IDs are 'likely' to be owned by > separate nodes. Being out by a few percent is perfectly acceptable. If > your estimate of N is way off, you will get bad guesses at this > distance, and poor performance. > > Of course, there are situations where you get large fluctuations in > membership, and you cannot pick a value of single value of N. In these > situations, the symmetric placement function may well be a good choice. > I have infact added symmetric replication to my analysis, and the > results will be available in the journal version of the DAS-P2P paper > you mentioned. I hope to make this available on my website real soon > now. There will also be a much fuller discussion of these issues in my > thesis, which is currently in the final draft stages. > > In comparison to other placement functions, I have found that the > symmetric placement function will offer a reliability similar to > successor placement, but with fetch times slightly slower than those > offered by finger replication. I hope that answers some of your > questions, I'd be glad to hear if you have any more. > > Matt _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
