Hi Arnaud, >section 8.2 >it is not clear what you mean in "as shown in [Le Blond], the right >balance of randomness and > locality depends on the P2P algorithm". We did not explore several P2P >protocols, but only BitTorrent. >We show that BT is extremely robust to high locality (as long as there >is enough randomness within each ISP). >We cannot conclude for any other P2P protocol.
I guess if locality will weaken a swarm depends on in which proportion the pieces of the resource the local peers have; and the balance of the cotent pieces distribution among these local peers. >"On the other hand, P2P systems not adopting the tit-for-tat approach > (e.g. the eDonkey network) should not be damaged by locality-based" >It is not clear to me. Peer selection (tit-for-tat like choking algo in >BT) is not the only one factor of efficiency, there is also piece >diversity. >Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection >algorithm). Therefore, as locality adversely impact >piece diversity, my bet is that Edonkey/emule will suffer from locality. What do you mean with "less efficient" by saying "Edonkey/emule also use rarest first (but a less efficient peer selection algorithm)"? Regards, Song Haibin _______________________________________________ p2p-hackers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.zooko.com/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
