On Thu, Aug 10, 2006 at 09:18:06AM -0400, Ed Tomlinson wrote: > On Wednesday 09 August 2006 10:49, Michael Rogers wrote: > > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > Because we have load propagation, it is entirely legitimate to > > > send requests ANYWAY, and let upstream nodes deal with the slowness - > > > > I'm inclined to agree with this argument, but I'm not sure it follows > > that we should send fewer requests to slow nodes. This will necessarily > > lead to fast nodes getting a larger proportion of requests, even if they > > don't get a larger absolute number of requests. Maybe that's acceptable, > > but I think we should distinguish between two questions: > > 1) should we rely on senders to slow down instead of backing off? > > 2) should we send a smaller proportion of requests to slow nodes? > > This is ineffect what the code I wrote in back in May does. It used a > know alg to do slow down the rate of requests to node rejecting > requests.
What algorithm? > > Ed -- 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/20060810/144e14da/attachment.pgp>
