Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

Sign up for GitHub

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Jump to bottom

During DHT crawl, keep evicted peers as a backup #53

Closed
Kubuxu opened this issue Mar 5, 2017 · 4 comments
Closed

During DHT crawl, keep evicted peers as a backup #53

Kubuxu opened this issue Mar 5, 2017 · 4 comments
Assignees
@raulk
Labels
exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature need/community-input Needs input from the wider community status/deferred Conscious decision to pause or backlog

Comments

@Kubuxu
Copy link
Member

Kubuxu commented Mar 5, 2017

No description provided.

@whyrusleeping whyrusleeping added status/ready Ready to be worked status/deferred Conscious decision to pause or backlog and removed status/ready Ready to be worked labels Oct 17, 2017
@bigs bigs added exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature need/community-input Needs input from the wider community labels Sep 11, 2018
@bigs
Copy link
Contributor

bigs commented Sep 11, 2018

@raulk maybe you and i could revive this issue given our recent k-bucket discussion? i think this is a low prio for now.

@raulk
Copy link
Member

raulk commented Sep 17, 2018

This is on the right track. However with the Kademlia table structure it will be fruitless. As it is we are encountering new peers all the time – we just don't store them as discussed here: #194 In other words, we don't experience a scarcity that would justify maintaining a backup set; in my view the issues stem from bucket/peer underutilisation, as described in that ticket.

@raulk raulk self-assigned this Sep 17, 2018
@raulk
Copy link
Member

raulk commented Sep 17, 2018

Happy to own this one.

@anacrolix
Copy link
Contributor

I don't think this is crawl specific, it is often suggested to keep peers in reserve that aren't in the routing table, presumably to replace evicted entries without waiting for further network activity. This behaviour also goes hand in hand with pinging entries for liveness. If this is correct @Kubuxu, let's update the issue title to reflect that.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Assignees

@raulk raulk

Labels
exp/expert Having worked on the specific codebase is important kind/enhancement A net-new feature or improvement to an existing feature need/community-input Needs input from the wider community status/deferred Conscious decision to pause or backlog
Projects
None yet
Milestone
No milestone
Development

No branches or pull requests
6 participants
@bigs @Stebalien @anacrolix @raulk @whyrusleeping @Kubuxu