Re: [GNUnet-developers] Re: Cheap trick for connectiontable.

[Igor Wronsky]

On Tue, 3 Sep 2002, Christian Grothoff wrote:

> Yes, but I guess we should be able to live with 'not too pretty' for what is 
> at the end a linked list. I think the only really "ugly" one would be if the 
> head of the list is removed (and we'll *have* to preserve its lock since it 
> would be the lock for the slot in the BE[], unless you have a better idea). 
> Getting this to work right will be hacky, but, IMO, so be it. 

Ok, I'll try to hack this in. Lets see what we get. ;)

> Well, the first one may push the load up, and then the others get dropped 
> because the load is too low. This ties in with the pending problem of 
> smoothing our load-methods (average over longer intervals) and increasing the 
> cron frequency to more than once per second.

nanosleep() could do the trick.

> > Though I had additional kludge there, I made gnunetd count
> > its own upstream load as well (otherwise we ended up in the priority
> > independent "send all" / "send none" cycle) and add that to the rxdiff
> > when time between calls was below 2 secs.
> Sounds like a great idea. We'd need some hook in the (0.4.9) transport layer 
> to notify statuscalls of the change in load, but that can (& should) be done. 

And above I of course mean txdiff. Anyway, both directions could be hacked
likewise, that is, between the call interval to /proc, keep stat of 
how much we send and receive and add them up to the previous counts, to
get a more accurate estimate.


I.