Well it's necessary, in the long term, to have some sort of validation / self-regulation mechanism for inserts. This is relatively easy for requests, but it is harder for inserts.
However, the basic problems we have to address in any new load balancing/limiting system are: 1. It must prevent nodes from flooding the network - not just slow everyone else down to mitigate the damage done. 2. It must propagate load back to its source. 3. It must not make it easy to identify which requests are locally originated. Our current load management algorithm fails on all these counts. On Thu, May 25, 2006 at 05:03:24PM +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > >Perhaps by requesting the data from another node? > > Possibly... I guess it would have to be done probabilistically - every > node along the path wants to know whether its downstream neighbour > forwarded the request, but we don't want every node along the path to > send out a request for the data. Also what happens if the downstream > neighbour hoards the data instead of forwarding it, and answers the > audit requests itself? I guess it's not a problem as long as the data's > available... > > So for each neighbour, we keep track of the inserts we've sent it and > periodically request one of them... if a neighbour has an unusually low > success rate then we penalise it? This sounds promising... > > Cheers, > Michael > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech > -- Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so. -------------- 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/20060525/fea840f7/attachment.pgp>
