[Tech] Re: The effect of slow nodes

[Jano]

toad wrote:

> On Sun, Dec 03, 2006 at 03:50:30PM +0100, Jano wrote:
>> Jano wrote:
>> 
>> > Here's an additional run, going from 1 to 30 as load in steps of 1.
>> 
>> My wrong, these were old runs. The correct ones are this:
> 
> Which old runs? They look completely different to the new ones - at
> least the purple line does.

I have posted three runs. The first one is here:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3912

which I wrongly posted two messages above again.

I used a source which I believed not to have slow nodes. Then it was pointed
to me that that was the branch with slow nodes, but only after a particular
revision. This was after I had updated my local copy, so I hadn't a clue
about which particular version I ran. Summary: a run where may be there are
slow nodes, or maybe not (This seems more likely since the throughput
matches the first MRogers runs).

Second run, with slow nodes and using the 2..28/+2 range: 

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3921

And final (third) run, range 1..30/+1:

http://article.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.technical/3931

About the purple line: these simulations die by OOM errors in the simulator.
In particular, I guess you're concerned by the drop. I'd not give it any
meaning, it's almost surely a partial execution. I'll take care to remove
these wrong results next time.

Nonetheless, I'm going to check it and come back to confirm.