2008/10/4 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>: > On Saturday 04 October 2008 02:23, Daniel Cheng wrote: >> 2008/10/4 Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org>: >> > On Friday 03 October 2008 17:27, Michael Rogers wrote: >> >> Can't remember whether this has been raised before, but a random walk >> >> terminates at a given node with probability proportional to the node's >> >> degree; does this mean high-degree nodes are more likely to receive swap >> >> requests than low-degree nodes? Seems like that could be disruptive in >> >> two ways: >> >> >> >> 1) When a high-degree node changes its location, many other nodes are >> >> affected. >> >> If you/vive/oskar are looking at the the degree thing... please review >> this as well: >> http://code.bulix.org/20bjpk-68537 >> >> This patch remove the opennet location from swapping -- >> essentially seperating the darknet and openet. > > Why would that be beneficial? You're still treating them as the same for > routing purposes?
darknet links are stable, opennet links are not. swapping should depends on (and only depends on) something stable, or the location won't be stable. >> >> 2) There might be some correlation between degree and other properties: >> >> high-degree darknet nodes might belong to committed users with large >> >> stores, in which case it's particularly disruptive if those nodes keep >> >> moving. >> >> >> >> Just a thought. >> > >> > I don't know. This looks like a question for vive/oskar. >> >> >> >> Cheers, >> >> Michael >> > >> > _______________________________________________ >> > Tech mailing list >> > Tech at freenetproject.org >> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> > >> _______________________________________________ >> Tech mailing list >> Tech at freenetproject.org >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >> >> > > _______________________________________________ > Tech mailing list > Tech at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech >
