Re: LIFO simulations

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 06:49:44PM +0000, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Jano wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> Very interesting... even accounting for the large amount of variation 
> between runs, LIFO seems to far exceed the throughput at which FIFO 
> collapses (with no flow control in either case - there's no clear 
> advantage to using LIFO if you already have flow control). I've 
> experimented with LIFO instead of FIFO in some simulations of a flooding 
> protocol and it seems to work well there too.

Surely it is an artefact?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> I haven't measured the route length I'm afraid; in fact I'm not sure 
> it's well-defined for all searches - what's the route length for an 
> insert that leaves data at multiple branches of the search tree?
> 
> > Here's a svn diff, in case you see something wrong with my changes:
> 
> Thanks - the changes look good to me.
> 
> Cheers,
> Michael

_______________________________________________
Tech mailing list
[email protected]
http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tech

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQFFf2OTA9rUluQ9pFARAiSDAJ4rXjSVWRTxYkrFWuvf+3iVx16lowCfRKDN
Yl5+/apRfxJqA/IJgPaLRrI=
=J1LS
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----