Jano wrote: > I have some preliminary results using LIFO queues. What I've done is > changing all queue insertions so request are put at head instead of at > tail. There's one queue in Node.java and three in Peer.java; I've changed > all. Michael could comment on some brokeness this could introduce, albeit > simulations seem to run correctly.
It shouldn't break anything, but it seems like it might be inefficient to allow existing searches to time out while new searches take priority. On the other hand the same argument would seem to apply to LIFO router queues, so my intuition is probably wrong. By the way, reversing the node's queue shouldn't make any difference - no timers are started until the search leaves the queue. > Results seem promising, although it seems LIFO alone will also collapse. > I'll try next with a larger load range and the eight combinations in a > single graph. Looking forward to it! Backoff alone seems to get good throughput at high loads, but with a poor success rate (see the attached graphs, averaged over three runs) - I'll be interested to see whether LIFO's high success rate can be combined with backoff's high throughput. Cheers, Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: success-rate.png Type: image/png Size: 4694 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061207/a59b743a/attachment.png> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: throughput.png Type: image/png Size: 5574 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061207/a59b743a/attachment-0001.png>
