On Thu, Dec 07, 2006 at 09:18:24PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > 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.
LIFO router queues? > > 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: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061208/743f0562/attachment.pgp>
