On 04/19/2017 03:53 PM, Alex Rousskov wrote: > On 04/18/2017 01:00 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > >> It turns out [CARP] performs as well as CRUSH > > > On 04/19/2017 06:51 AM, Loic Dachary wrote: > >> I found one use case where CRUSH behaves significantly better than CARP. > > > FYI, here is how the above statements can be interpreted: "It is all a > mystery to us. Sometimes CRUSH and CARP are about the same, sometimes > one of the algorithms wins, but we cannot tell you when to use CARP or > CRUSH because we cannot generalize their differences. Our experimental > data does not suggest any clear trends." > > That unpredictability may be the nature of the beast, of course, but I > currently see no reasoning or experimental data to confirm or deny that > sad hypothesis.
CRUSH is no mystery and has been extensively described at http://www.crss.ucsc.edu/media/papers/weil-sc06.pdf CARP is somewhat mysterious because https://tools.ietf.org/html/draft-vinod-carp-v1-03 provides formulas with no rationale explaining why they are necessary. I did the best I could to show why it would be useful to have a peer selection method based on CRUSH. I'm also offering to write this implementation. Please let me know if that is of interest to Squid Cheers -- Loïc Dachary, Artisan Logiciel Libre _______________________________________________ squid-dev mailing list [email protected] http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-dev
