toad wrote: > On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 03:50:30PM +0100, Jano wrote: >> Jano wrote: >> >> > Here's an additional run, going from 1 to 30 as load in steps of 1. >> >> My wrong, these were old runs. The correct ones are this: > > Which old runs? They look completely different to the new ones - at > least the purple line does.
I have posted three runs. The first one is here: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3912 which I wrongly posted two messages above again. I used a source which I believed not to have slow nodes. Then it was pointed to me that that was the branch with slow nodes, but only after a particular revision. This was after I had updated my local copy, so I hadn't a clue about which particular version I ran. Summary: a run where may be there are slow nodes, or maybe not (This seems more likely since the throughput matches the first MRogers runs). Second run, with slow nodes and using the 2..28/+2 range: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3921 And final (third) run, range 1..30/+1: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3931 About the purple line: these simulations die by OOM errors in the simulator. In particular, I guess you're concerned by the drop. I'd not give it any meaning, it's almost surely a partial execution. I'll take care to remove these wrong results next time. Nonetheless, I'm going to check it and come back to confirm.
