toad wrote: > On Fri, Dec 01, 2006 at 07:32:52PM +0100, Jano wrote: >> toad wrote: >> >> > Interesting. I'm not entirely sure what these graphs tell us though, as >> > explained earlier ... >> > >> > It is very surprising that slow nodes don't drag down the whole >> > network; >> >> Actually throughput seems lower and wilder; around 30k instead of 40k. >> More runs could clarify this. > > MRogers said there was a lot of variation between runs... more runs are > therefore a good thing in any case.
I'll leave some running overnight. >> >> > throttling without backoff seems competitive with, if not better than, >> > throttling with backoff, even on a heterogenous network. >> > >> > Ideas? Explanations? >> >> I don't know what throttling and backoff are doing, so I'm unable to help >> here. > > Throttling = request senders slow down when they see overload messages > or timeouts. Derived from TCP. Slow down for all peers or only overloaded ones? > Backoff = node doesn't route to another node for a while after a timeout > or overload message. This is doubled the following time, until we reach > a limit; it is reset if a request completes without overload or timeout. > Derived from ethernet. Thanks. > The theory goes that if there are many slow nodes on the network, > throttling would pull the whole network down to match their speed. This > is why we have backoff; to prevent this from happening. Some more data apart from success/failure must be extracted from these sims to see what's really happening, I guess...
