> > I haven't seen _any_ compelling argument why above-average nodes > > should attract more than their "fair share" of requests. What's > > yours? > > Over time, the large node simply accumulates more data from Freenet. > This means there should be more nodes which point to data on the large > node. Thus, there will be more requests routed to the large node.
Does FreeNet not take into account reliability, proximity, speed, etc of nodes when fetching files? If it does I would think it could automaticlly sense if a node was becoming saturated and find a more satisfactory link and/or clone the resource? Why is it a bad thing if machines with more resources do more work? As long as the number of nodes is high enough to absorb any machine going offline and all resources are cloned often enough that they never exist only on a single machine (assuming they are being requested at all). RedHat.com has a bigger machine with more bandwidth so they serve out the most copies of xyz iso files. Smaller mirrors that are still greater than normal machines also serve out the same files. Lots of small (home use) type machines also serve out the same files. Asumming the network could automaticlly locate and make available all these files it makes sense for machines close to one of the small nodes to grab the file from there first. If no small node with the file is close then try the mirror node that is a little bigger. If no mirror node with the file is close try the big node. I understand that FreeNet doesn't work exactly like that but the structure seems logical as the bigger a node is the more traffic it gets but most the traffic is still decentralized to small nodes. Is there a technical reason that structure doesn't work? _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
