[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[GNUnet-developers] Re: Block discard question

From: Christian Grothoff
Subject: [GNUnet-developers] Re: Block discard question
Date: Thu, 6 Nov 2003 15:14:50 -0500
User-agent: KMail/1.4.3

Hash: SHA1

On Wednesday 05 November 2003 03:30 pm, Igor wrote:
> In manager.c/insertContent(), is it currently
> correct to increment ce->importance by MANAGER_age
> but still make the
>     if (importance <= dbAPI->getMinimumPriority(computeHighDB(&query))) {
> check against nonincremented values on both sides of <= ? It seems
> to me that with the current check there's no actual timeouting. I.e.
> if there is no hidden decrement-all option, the current code
> seems to always prefer a prio 16 content in database to incoming
> content with prio 0, no matter how much time passes?

You are right, it should be importance+MANAGER_age.  Fixed in CVS.

> Besides, it throws quite a lot of discards at the moment, I presume
> its pushed content. Could we add a message flag that would inform
> other peers that they don't need to bother with sending
> unrequested content, that is, a disk full flag?

Minus the aging bug, a disk may cease to be full - even for 0-priority 
content.  Also, it reveils something about your node that you may not want to 
expose.  Finally, what difference does it make? I mean, instead of padding 
with random content, the other peer would now have to send NOISE? How is that 
better (minus a minimal amount of processing)?  I don't think a disk-full 
advertisement would help.

Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]