[GNUnet-developers] Re: Block discard question

[Christian Grothoff]

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
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.

C
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.0.7 (GNU/Linux)

iD8DBQE/qqu79tNtMeXQLkIRAm5sAJ9fa98Vz+JHCBtMc9+GLvc/cpEU8wCfUf/x
e3Eg+I7dwHhAwUlFjns4tNE=
=tZC/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----