Big hype on small worlds. (was Re: Dijjer and Freenet (RE: [p2p-hackers] clustering))

Lemon Obrien lemonobrien at
Mon Mar 20 21:28:28 UTC 2006

its the communications between the nodes..are they passive, aggressive, how do they communicate with each other...for example...should a relay propagate a stream to more than one node; with video, for instance, your replicating data over the entire network; but something like a simple connection message should not. 
  I say screw the math...math can't do real measurement of true animalistic behavior..
  anger for example? 'fuzzy'....and how nodes communicate and work together are the same way an  orgranism will work with others (small world) and within well...
  so your network can be will ultimateley be determined by ones view of the world. and science is a view...for example...i believe in the passive approach...and my protocols reflect that...and if you know small world theory; this could be called the 'weak' connection....which if you know anything about human and social behavior, is the one where information travels most efficiently.

Daniel Brookshier <turbogeek at> wrote:
  I'll chime in. In the P2P world, O(log^2 N) may not be efficient, but 
it may be the cheapest in terms of resources. For instance, a walker 
may take a while to find a resource in a small world topology, but it 
expends little effort at each node. Conversely, to attain fewer hops, 
that also means a larger resource at each node to index and process 
the index queries. There are also ways to use the hubs in such 
networks to greatly improve efficiency.

The small world is also not necessarily the complete network or only 
topology available to an application. The number of hops in a search 
is not the same as a the number of hops that may be applied to 
communications. Thus even when one part is inefficient, the other may 
be ideal.

On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:

> On 20 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Bob Harris wrote:
>> There is a lot of hype around small world networks. They have
>> a catchy name. And they are easy to code up. But they have terrible
>> performance.
> It is rather courageous (or perhaps simply foolish) of you to 
> dismiss an entire avenue of study so cavalierly, time will tell 
> whether you are right.
>> Who wants O(log^2 N) performance?
> It has already been pointed out that actual route lengths are far 
> more important than the order of the route lengths in practical 
> networks. It has also been pointed out that O(log^2 N) performance 
> presumes a fixed routing table size, where in most if not all 
> practical deployments, routing table sizes are increased with the 
> size of the network.
>> Did I really see simulations talking about 40+ hops?
> You might have, but I can't recall any such simulations mentioned 
> in this thread.
> Ian.
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:

p2p-hackers mailing list
p2p-hackers at
Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:

You don't get no juice unless you squeeze
Lemon Obrien, the Third.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...

More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list