--- Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > You are suggesting that specailization makes no sense in small > > networks and that freenet does what is optimal. Ian, please think > > about this. In a tiny network were every node was connected to every > > other one, specialization still makes sense. > > Optimally each node would be specialized in a portion of hashspace > > proportional to its resources. Requests/inserts could work in HTL=1. > > No, optimally every node caches everything and there is no > specialization whatsoever.
Well, I guess that's "optimal" for redundancy. It certainly isn't "optimal" from a storage or bandwidth point of view. Maybe that's the bush we're beating around. So when do you think it becomes "optimal" not to store everything on every node? Seems to me it couldn't be "optimal" to do this once N > HTL of inserts. This "optimal" word is a bit funny. __________________________________________________________________ Gesendet von Yahoo! Mail - http://mail.yahoo.de Logos und Klingeltöne fürs Handy bei http://sms.yahoo.de _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
