On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:49:44PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote: > Jano wrote: > > Here are these results. I'd like to hear your comments, since the clear LIFO > > advantage is curious (mind you, in some cases it more than doubles the > > other techniques) and maybe it's a simulator artifact. > > Very interesting... even accounting for the large amount of variation > between runs, LIFO seems to far exceed the throughput at which FIFO > collapses (with no flow control in either case - there's no clear > advantage to using LIFO if you already have flow control). I've > experimented with LIFO instead of FIFO in some simulations of a flooding > protocol and it seems to work well there too.
Surely it is an artefact? > > > Do we know what's > > the typical route length in these simulations? I expected the multi-hop > > thing to ruin the intuitively good performance of the single-hop case. > > I haven't measured the route length I'm afraid; in fact I'm not sure > it's well-defined for all searches - what's the route length for an > insert that leaves data at multiple branches of the search tree? > > > Here's a svn diff, in case you see something wrong with my changes: > > Thanks - the changes look good to me. > > 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/20061213/45a78e7c/attachment.pgp>
