96 |
- Has no specific mechanism to heal partitioned peer groups |
- Has no specific mechanism to heal partitioned peer groups |
97 |
- Additional redundancy can be achievied using a "successor-list", |
- Additional redundancy can be achievied using a "successor-list", |
98 |
e.g., O(log n) successor peers |
e.g., O(log n) successor peers |
99 |
|
- Numerial metric: no "peer-choice" during lookups |
100 |
|
|
101 |
The assumption for the results above is that the system is "in the steady state", |
The assumption for the results above is that the system is "in the steady state", |
102 |
according to the authors. |
according to the authors. |
191 |
Issues |
Issues |
192 |
====== |
====== |
193 |
|
|
194 |
|
ISSUE: When should we discuss this with the author of GISP? |
195 |
|
|
196 |
ISSUE: When should we discuss this with the author of GISP? |
ISSUE: Does GISP support "peer-choice" during lookups? |
197 |
|
|
198 |
|
ISSUE: Does GISP peer is able determine if an another peer is |
199 |
|
not "useful" or not (not just PING scenario) ("a peer can discard |
200 |
|
information of unreachable peers") |
201 |
|
|
202 |
Changes |
Changes |
203 |
======= |
======= |