Re: LIFO simulations
toad <toad-EI5O+8PHWbJeeLb3ft/[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.network.freenet.technical |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <[email protected]> |
On Sun, Dec 10, 2006 at 09:54:59PM +0100, Jano wrote: > Jano wrote: > > >> Looking forward to it! Backoff alone seems to get good throughput at > >> high loads, but with a poor success rate (see the attached graphs, > >> averaged over three runs) - I'll be interested to see whether LIFO's > >> high success rate can be combined with backoff's high throughput. > > > > I have a new run going from 5 to 25 that I'll try to post this night. > > We'll see what it shows... > > Here are these results. I'd like to hear your comments, since the clear LIFO > advantage is curious (mind you, in some cases it more than doubles the > other techniques) and maybe it's a simulator artifact. Do we know what's > the typical route length in these simulations? I expected the multi-hop > thing to ruin the intuitively good performance of the single-hop case. > > Here's a svn diff, in case you see something wrong with my changes: My guess would be we're not counting the requests that never complete? _______________________________________________ Tech mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech
signature.asc
(application/pgp-signature, 189 B)
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) iD8DBQFFfZjKA9rUluQ9pFARAsBmAKCTP69uzt0reLTV/m0JL4dA7xjAtgCfdxT1 B/j/GEywArMzgiGFsUr8rwg= =7og9 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----