What is the point in having a "stable" release with such a fundamental problem?
Matthew Toseland wrote: > It is well established that there is a problem with 0.5 routing. What > relevance does this have to anything? > > On Thu, Dec 01, 2005 at 09:30:01AM +0000, Gordan Bobic wrote: > >>Ian Clarke wrote: >> >>>On 30/11/05, Gordan Bobic <gordan at bobich.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Matthew Toseland wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>>>Umm, please read the presentation on 0.7. Specializations are simply >>>>>fixed numbers in 0.7. The problem with probabilistic caching according >>>>>to specialization is that we need to deal with both very small networks >>>>>and very large networks. How do we sort this out? >>>> >>>>It's quite simple - on smaller networks, the specialisation of the node >>>>will be wider. You use a mean and standard deviation of the current >>>>store distribution. If the standard deviation is large, you make it more >>>>likely to cache things further away. >>> >>> >>>You are proposing a fix to a problem before we have even determined >>>whether a problem exists. I am not currently aware of any evidence >>>that simple LRU provides inadequate specialization, or that we need to >>>enforce specialization in this way. >>> >>>In other words: If its not broken, don't fix it (words every software >>>engineer should live by). >> >>Having just put two nodes up, one with unlimited bandwidth (well, >>100Mb/s) one with less, and seeing both of them sit at the maximum >>bandwidth set or maximum CPU usage, whichever runs out first, tells me >>that there likely is a problem. >> >>It seems obvious to me that without specialisation there can be no >>routing other than random/flooding - and I am not seeing particularly >>pronounced specialisation. The only reason it _seems_ to work is because >>popular content gets caches on most nodes. >> >>Gordan
