On Tue, Nov 28, 2006 at 02:15:58AM -0500, Ken Snider wrote: > toad wrote: > > >Okay, so there is a dramatic collapse because it reaches the maximum > >capacity of the network. Whereas with flow control, we keep on adding > >requests even though the network is overloaded, and they are misrouted, > >and not tried properly; we progressively route requests to fewer and > >fewer nodes. > > > >So the axes on the graph are a little misleading. We start very many > >requests, but we don't properly attempt them. This is bad; throttling is > >supposed to prevent us from trying so many requests that hardly any of > >them are properly attempted. So throttling should, on your axes, cut out > >some time before an unthrottled network cuts out. > > Am I too simplistic to think that the throttling system should mind a > semireliable way to guage delay due to Outgoing BW delay, divvy that into > number of outbound reqs/sec, and NAK any inbound requests that come in > above that rate?
It does. It calculates the amount of bandwidth that will be used by a request and only accepts it if it is possible. > > I would think you could do that in a fairly lightweight fashion (i.e., > without even looking at the request itself)? -------------- 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/20061128/5f5cec8b/attachment.pgp>
