1 | | also, if you get a chance, could you try and remember why we went with the 'Tahoe3' peer selection algorithm instead of the 'Tahoe2' first-100-peers-in-the-permuted-list approach? and maybe add it to the wiki under PeerSelection or I think there's a PeerSelection/TahoeThree page waiting to be created? |
2 | | I wasn't able to remember our reasons when I wrote up the arch doc |
| 1 | Implement the TahoeTwo peer-selection algorithm for share upload. This is the |
| 2 | first-N-peers-in-the-permuted-list approach, as opposed to the TahoeThree |
| 3 | "shares in baskets" scheme that's present in 0.5.0. TahoeThree can result |
| 4 | severe non-uniform distribution of shares (in some cases, all shares being |
| 5 | given to the same node), which hurts reliability, and is worse in small |
| 6 | networks. |
| 7 | |
| 8 | The share download is still ask-everybody, which will work up to maybe 100 |
| 9 | peers. Eventually we'll move that to TahoeTwo as well. |
| 10 | |
| 11 | In the longer run, we'll need to move to DenverAirport, to get beyond a few |
| 12 | hundred peers, but we're thinking post-0.6.0 for that. |