[freenet-dev] Weighted coin is better was Re: Moving to a simple coin was Re: Tunnels vs premix routing

[Matthew Toseland]

On Saturday 26 January 2008 13:08, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > - Some form of per-node failure tables (requires modifications to ULPRs).
> 
> Just a quick thought: any idea how per-node failure tables would affect 
> opennet destination sampling? If a successful request follows several 
> failures (possibly from other requesters, so the successful requester 
> won't be able to tell) it seems like it could take quite a convoluted 
> path...

The node at the end should be close to optimal even if we've redirected near 
the beginning, right? Otherwise, we've found data that was somewhere it 
shouldn't have been, which is valuable because it will then move to where it 
should be, although we get a dubious route in the short term - it shouldn't 
happen very often? If finding data in odd places is very common, then path 
folding from ordinary routing isn't going to work very well either, it'll be 
dominated by fetches of ubiquitously cached data (which it probably is...).
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080126/e0083704/attachment.pgp