Big hype on small worlds. (was Re: Dijjer and Freenet (RE:
bob.harris.spamcontrol at gmail.com
Mon Mar 20 23:55:45 UTC 2006
I thought we went through this fruitless discussion on what
constitutes a small world already. I use the term in the same sense as
Barabasi, Strogatz and Kleinberg. Kleinberg is the only one who has a
tight, formal definition (albeit in a highly idealized grid), but if
that's too restrictive for your taste, I'm happy to include any
unstructured overlay where the edges are selected at random and the
number of edges per node is relatively small in number.
I didn't know what a clustering coefficient was. I looked it up and it
seems like a pointless metric. If you are lumping CAN/Chord/Pastry
with Gnutella/Freenet, you are doing something wrong.
On 3/20/06, Daniel Stutzbach <agthorr at cs.uoregon.edu> wrote:
> On Mon, Mar 20, 2006 at 02:00:50PM -0800, coderman wrote:
> > i should distinguish between unstructured small worlds (what i've been
> > calling small worlds) and highly structured overlay small worlds
> > (CAN/Chord/Pastry/etc).
> > where's Zooko's p2p ontology page? :)
> That's an important distinction. I'd suggest you say "unstructured"
> instead of "small world" then, because the Chord, Pastry, and company
> are more small-world-ish than unstructured overlays like Gnutella.
> (specifically because they have a much higher clustering coefficient
> than Gnutella)
> Daniel Stutzbach Computer Science Ph.D Student
> http://www.barsoom.org/~agthorr University of Oregon
> p2p-hackers mailing list
> p2p-hackers at zgp.org
> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:
More information about the P2p-hackers