On Wednesday 20 January 2010 15:44:22 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Toseland > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > 4) Capacity. IMHO if Freenet is working well we should not need insert on > > demand: Its capacity should be much greater than it is now, and we should > > be able to just insert and fetch the data. > > Actually, I'm not completely convinced this is a problem. At present, > I believe most of our data persistence issues stem from node churn, > not blocks falling out of individual stores. Right now that's just a > (somewhat justified) hunch, but I have sufficient data to investigate > in more detail.
I have some fascinating data on this from MHK testers, which leads to all sorts of interesting theories. I will be posting it shortly. I agree that in theory Freenet ought to have a huge capacity. And if we need to increase redundancy a bit to enable that then so be it. In which case insert on demand hopefully won't be necessary - you'll just click a file and get it.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
