From: Piete Brooks <Piete.Brooks@cl.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 95 16:03:43 PDT
To: Christian Wettergren <cwe@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Subject: Re: server congestion?
In-Reply-To: <199508242214.PAA25424@Csli.Stanford.EDU>
Message-ID: <"swan.cl.cam.:271770:950824230145"@cl.cam.ac.uk>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain


> Couldn't one take advantage of the 50.000 mistake, by
> setting up a second server for that space.

The design of the prtotocol assumes a hierarchy -- maybe in the next attempt.

Static partitioning would be possible (e.g. 0000-7ffff and 8000-ffff)
but there are problems with acking to the right server, deciding which to
contact, etc.

> I guess things will screw up when the first server reaches 
> FFFF, as indicated earlier.

Yup.

> What would be nice is if one could divide up the key
> between servers also.

Hierarchy or static ?

> Another thing that might decrease the load on the server
> is if we start allocating more blocks at a time, lets
> say 2-4 blocks each time. Wouldn't that help?

I think most of the load is "HELO COMM QUIT" clients.
Yes -- we had thought of upping the allocation ....