On Wednesday 14 May 2008 10:21, Jano wrote: > Ian Clarke wrote: > > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Toseland > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> > It could be related to the fact that I've only been able to dedicate > >> > about 2 Gb for my store, but I doubt it. > >> > >> That certainly won't help. > > > > What evidence is there that people need to have multi-gigabyte > > datastores? We aren't necessarily helping ourselves by telling people > > they need to devote anywhere from 1-5% of their total hard disks to > > Freenet, unless it *really is* necessary. Freenet enthusiasts may be > > ok with this, but casual users probably won't be, and we *need* casual > > users. > > Totally in agreement with this. > > > > > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB.
I disagree. If there isn't enough space for there to be a useful amount of content, then Freenet won't work well. And I don't see why 1GB is such a big deal anyway. > > 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). That will be fixed soon. > > 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.
pgpBFv339aB7p.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl@freenetproject.org http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
