From: "Scott G. Miller" <[email protected]> > > > > > By file splitting, we meant that there would be a mandatory chunk sizes > > > for files such as 16k, 32k, 64k, 128k, and 256k or perhaps higher. Files > > > would be padded so that they fit a given chunk size. Your proposal would > > > have some might have some routing problems too, I think. > > > > Having a fixed chunk-size worries me as it imposes an arbitrary > > restriction - why a fixed size, why not just leave it up to the client > > (it would be in the client's interest not to make it too big as then it > > might not get stored anywhere)? > The fixed size restriction meant that you had to pick one size out of a > set of possible chunk sizes. This is partially to defeat file-size > matching attacks. Well there will always be a last uneved size block, unless all blocks are forced to a size of 2^N, this restriction can be applied by either including padding or by recursively splitting until all blocks are of size 2^N. Padding wouldnt hurt as much as it sounds first; it would force file splitting to reasonable size, as otherwise the padding might be unnescesary large in proportion to the total size. For example if I have a file of size 1025k, I could split it into 9x 128k blocks thereby leaving only 127k to be padded, or splitting it into 17x 64k blocks and leaving 65k to be padded.
--typo _______________________________________________ Freenet-dev mailing list Freenet-dev at lists.sourceforge.net http://lists.sourceforge.net/mailman/listinfo/freenet-dev
