On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 08:48:20PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > toad wrote: > > As I've > > explained I'm skeptical about the results appearing to show that backoff > > is always bad... > > Agreed, advisory backoff seems to do a pretty good job. However, without > throttling or token passing to limit the number of searches entering the > network it seems like it ought to collapse *eventually*, albeit at a > much higher load than without backoff. I've run sims up to a load of 50 > with no problems - at 55 I started to get OOM errors for backoff alone, > but I haven't looked into the causes yet.
Well there are two issues here: 1. Simulations don't seem to show a consistent lead for backoff plus throttling over just throttling. At least, recent ones - do yours? If this is true, then why? 2. Why is the real network so slow? It uses far less bandwidth than the specified limit; this suggests that the throttling has gone mad, or something (pre-emptive rejection) has broken it. Can we reproduce this in the simulation, and show why it happens / that it doesn't happen if we slightly change things? > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- 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/20061208/f65deb61/attachment.pgp>
