On Apr 6, 2010, at 1:43 PM, David Shaw wrote: > On Apr 5, 2010, at 5:01 PM, Kristian Fiskerstrand wrote: > >> I also did some minor fiddeling around with the priorities. It still >> only returns a limited amount of records (currently 10), but those with >> a higher weight are always prioritized in the selection as well. >> >> Feel free to come with input as to the number of records to show and >> which servers should benefit from weighting up. Currently I set my own >> keys.kfwebs.net to weight 15 and keyserver.gingerbear.net. to weight 30 >> for test purposes. The default for the rest is 20. > > There are many ways to automate this if you wanted to. One simple way to do > it would be to rank the servers on how fast they respond. Faster servers > will thus be queried more, until such time as they are not fast, and then > they'd be queried less. Slower servers would be queried less to allow them > to recover and become fast. It's somewhat naive, but should match the > real-world performance better than the round-robin does. >
The "preference" algorithm is far easier to state than to implement, mostly because whatever server _WAS_ fastest is rather different than whatever server _IS_ fastest. Otherwise: You are absolutely correct. 73 de Jeff _______________________________________________ Sks-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/sks-devel
