On Tue, 3 Aug 1999, LOVRIC Ivan CNET/DSE/CAE wrote:
> > So the best way to chose depends on the hit ratio and on the link
> > characteristics. Maybe other parameters should also be taken into account.
> >
> > I am curious to know what is the behaviour of the other cache protocols in
> > such funny but more and more frequent contexts.
> >
>
> Before including this problem within the "known problems draft" in the
> approriate form, does anybody have any comments about it.
AFAIK, in todays cache meshes, a cache must know its peers. It may be
reasonable to suggest that when asymmetric links and other complications
exist, a cache administrator should configure peer selection algorithm
appropriately. IMO, the described problem has little to do with ICP. It
is a question of how configurable peer selection is.
I do not know if ICP contains peer selection part (e.g., go to the first
HIT peer). Even if it does, the practice shows that peer selection is
separate from object discovery protocols (ICP, HTCP, Carp, Cache Digest,
etc.). Peer selection procedure drives object discovery routine(s),
determining the order in which the latter are used, the time to stop,
and the final selection among several candidates.
Real life networks are probably too complex to design a universal
automated peer selection algorithm, no matter how much info that
algorithm may have access to. This is especially true when people are
killing themselves over 1% increase in hit ratio.
Alex.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Nov 18 2004 - 11:21:26 MST