<div>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. </div> <div><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #c7ffb7"></FONT> </div> <div><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #c7ffb7">I say screw the math...math can't do real measurement of true animalistic behavior..</FONT></div> <div>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 itself...as well...</div> <div>so your network can be whatever...it 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.</div> <div><FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #c7ffb7"></FONT> </div> <div><BR><BR><B><I>Daniel Brookshier <turbogeek@cluck.com></I></B> wrote:</div> <BLOCKQUOTE class=replbq style="PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; BORDER-LEFT: #1010ff 2px solid">I'll chime in. In the P2P world, O(log^2 N) may not be efficient, but <BR>it may be the cheapest in terms of resources. For instance, a walker <BR>may take a while to find a resource in a small world topology, but it <BR>expends little effort at each node. Conversely, to attain fewer hops, <BR>that also means a larger resource at each node to index and process <BR>the index queries. There are also ways to use the hubs in such <BR>networks to greatly improve efficiency.<BR><BR>The small world is also not necessarily the complete network or only <BR>topology available to an application. The
number of hops in a search <BR>is not the same as a the number of hops that may be applied to <BR>communications. Thus even when one part is inefficient, the other may <BR>be ideal.<BR><BR>On Mar 20, 2006, at 2:42 PM, Ian Clarke wrote:<BR><BR>> On 20 Mar 2006, at 12:11, Bob Harris wrote:<BR>>> There is a lot of hype around small world networks. They have<BR>>> a catchy name. And they are easy to code up. But they have terrible<BR>>> performance.<BR>><BR>> It is rather courageous (or perhaps simply foolish) of you to <BR>> dismiss an entire avenue of study so cavalierly, time will tell <BR>> whether you are right.<BR>><BR>>> Who wants O(log^2 N) performance?<BR>><BR>> It has already been pointed out that actual route lengths are far <BR>> more important than the order of the route lengths in practical <BR>> networks. It has also been pointed out that O(log^2 N) performance <BR>> presumes a fixed routing table size, where in
most if not all <BR>> practical deployments, routing table sizes are increased with the <BR>> size of the network.<BR>><BR>>> Did I really see simulations talking about 40+ hops?<BR>><BR>> You might have, but I can't recall any such simulations mentioned <BR>> in this thread.<BR>><BR>> Ian.<BR>><BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> p2p-hackers mailing list<BR>> p2p-hackers@zgp.org<BR>> http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Here is a web page listing P2P Conferences:<BR>> http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences<BR>><BR><BR>_______________________________________________<BR>p2p-hackers mailing list<BR>p2p-hackers@zgp.org<BR>http://zgp.org/mailman/listinfo/p2p-hackers<BR>_______________________________________________<BR>Here is a web page listing P2P
Conferences:<BR>http://www.neurogrid.net/twiki/bin/view/Main/PeerToPeerConferences<BR></BLOCKQUOTE><BR><BR><BR>You don't get no juice unless you squeeze<br>Lemon Obrien, the Third.