* Jano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-14 12:55:49]: > Florent Daignière wrote: > > > * Jano <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2008-05-14 > > 11:21:05]: > > > >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. > >> > >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume downloads. > >> Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one go has the > >> potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time). > >> > >> I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved > >> somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now. > >> > > > > They are good reasons why we shouldn't implement download-resuming. > > Could you please elaborate? >
For the n-th. time : not having that "feature" gives users a good incentive to keep their nodes up.
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
