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-----
lmpx.com only provides a reader for public news (NNTP) servers. It is not affiliated with the servers or forums shown here and is not responsible for the content of articles, which is written by their respective authors.