On Tuesday 29 April 2008 22:57, you wrote: > Matthew Toseland wrote: > > sdiz is planning to implement an unindexed (random replacement, salted) > > datastore post 0.7.0. Is there any chance you could do some simulations of > > this? It's not quite random replacement, it's an approximation to random > > replacement... I'd be happier if we had some experimental data showing it > > doesn't cause catastrophe. > > Sure, if I can get some CPU time I'd be happy to. Do you have any more > information about the difference between sdiz's scheme and random > replacement? The simulations I've done so far have used a random salt > for each node, so two keys that collide on one node probably won't > collide on the next node.
Oh, so you didn't actually simulate true random replacement with an index? That would be interesting for comparison. Yes what you describe is exactly what sdiz is proposing - a direct implementation using a single table. The big question is whether it is safe to have an implementation that doesn't support rekeying. If we have to periodically rekey then an indirect implementation will be necessary, which works on the same principles but is much more complex. > > Another problem is coming up with a realistic traffic model, which is > something I keep running up against with simulations (not just Freenet, > PhD stuff as well). :| I thought there were standard models? I assume they all suck? > > Cheers, > Michael -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20080429/078bbb58/attachment.pgp>
