<>
> It is better to route data though other nodes even when there is a more
> direct path between two nodes?
"Better" is a very vague word in this context. Are you going to save time and
bandwidth for a single request using direct connections? Sure you are. However, over
the course of time when there are lots of requests, you will scale considerably better
if you use a Freenet-style request/caching type of routing.
In any case, Freenet *attempts* to find the "best" node to download from by requesting
from the node that is most likely going to have the data you're looking for. If it
doesn't have the data, then that node recursivly searches the nearest node it knows
about for the data ("nearest" defined by the hash value of the data).
> In particular do you think that this
> strategy is flawed:
>
> I also believe that by simply transferring data from one node to another
> a lot of the benefits of freenet's caching algorithm can be retained.
> Because, once node A transfers a key from node B nodes close to A (say
> B,C,D) can transfer data from node A instead of having to download it
> from node S which is farther away. If node A is inaccessible to node
> B,C,D for some reason this scheme will still work because once node B
> downloads the data nodes C and D can transfer it from node B. The more
> nodes that download the data the less chance there is that *all* off
> them will be inaccessible to other nodes.
>
> However, if for some reason nodes A,B,C,D and completely inaccessible to
> other nodes, node S will notice that it is getting a large number of
> requested from far away and will upload the data to some other nodes
> which are closer to the origin of the requests.
>
> ---
> http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> freenet-tech mailing list
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
>
_______________________________________________
freenet-tech mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
