[Top][All Lists]

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

Re: [GNUnet-developers] What's next (was: Fwd: Asymmetric load patch)

From: Glenn McGrath
Subject: Re: [GNUnet-developers] What's next (was: Fwd: Asymmetric load patch)
Date: Mon, 29 Jul 2002 09:49:11 +1000

On Sun, 28 Jul 2002 12:10:10 -0500
Christian Grothoff <address@hidden> wrote:

> On Sunday 28 July 2002 06:48 am, you wrote:
> > The amount of (padding) noise transmitted. Stats
> > for the last night
> >
> > #NOISE     received:     39470k send:    107306k
> > #octets    received:     61633k send:    143987k
> >
> > On a university pipe like you have over there, that is nothing,
> > but nevertheless signifies quite inefficient operation at the
> > current gnunet scale: 74% of the up traffic was noise (63%
> > for down)! As the noise padding (fixed size packets)
> > seems one of the central ideas of gnunet, I have no idea
> > if this could/should be addressed. It seems wasteful
> > though, as in limited bandwidth environment using
> > noise padding forces the node to drop actual traffic which
> > could've been handled if noise was not used. Atleast
> > it appears that way with naive thinking.

> What can be done? 

As a bit of a compromise, what about makeing multiple packets sizes, say
500, 1000, 1500.

Data is more likely to be in a 1500 Byte packet, but if this 1500 Byte
packet could be occasionally be split up into a 1000 and 500 Byte packets
then it would help to mix up the data and control packets.

It might be difficult to split the 1500 Byte data packet because of the
way the hash's are stored.... i dont know, just a thought.


Attachment: pgpSNzGaZM4aI.pgp
Description: PGP signature

reply via email to

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