[Tech] Backoff considered harmful?

[toad]

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: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : http://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20061128/5f5cec8b/attachment.pgp