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

Bob Harris bob.harris.spamcontrol at gmail.com
Mon Mar 20 21:46:42 UTC 2006


Hi Lemon,

>it will ultimateley be determined by ones
> view of the world. and science is a view...

This argument leads to sophism, where every idea (think intelligent
design) is as worthy and good as every other. That's false :-). At
least, in the reality-based community.

>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.

I guess none of us know anything about human and social behavior; we
all thought information travels fastest down the shortest fiber link with
the smallest number of hops.

Frankly, a lot of small world hype relies on hand-wavy allusions to
social behavior. Well, computers aren't people; they can be very
efficient when
misapplied analogies do not get in the way.

Bob.




>
>
>
>
> Daniel Brookshier <turbogeek at cluck.com> 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 zgp.org
> > http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> > _______________________________________________
> > Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> >
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>
>
>
> You don't get no juice unless you squeeze
> Lemon Obrien, the Third.
> _______________________________________________
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences
>
>
>



More information about the P2p-hackers mailing list