On Fri, Apr 21, 2006 at 04:51:47PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > On 4/21/06, Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > On Sat, Apr 15, 2006 at 06:23:54PM -0400, Gregory Maxwell wrote: > > > On 4/15/06, Lars Juel Nielsen <lars.j.nielsen at gmail.com> wrote: > > > > That sounds like a quite bad idea if the small world theory and our > > > > routing algorithm works. > > > > At least according to my understanding of it. > > > > > > The alternative is that I drastically reduce the number of peerings I > > > have to improve the chances that my close-friends are able to stay > > > connected. ... but then I become part of a small subgraph myself and > > > become more likely a victim of partitioning. > > > > What is the implicit problem here? > > > > Please explain your complaint, not just your proposed solution. > > Did you miss my initial post? > I know I'm long winded, but the first three paragraphs explain the problem. > > I have many peers. One is a close friend who trusts me and cares about > his anonymity. He is only connected to freenet via me and perhaps one > other node. > > My node gets busy with its other peers, and my friend ends up backed > off and partitioned from freenet.
Well it doesn't happen here and I suspect I have more peers than you do. Long term backoff is a bug, or a severely overloaded node for some local reason. > > I can reduce my peers, but then the chances of me becoming partitioned > are increased. -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060424/9c4ffdad/attachment.pgp>
