On Tue, Oct 09, 2001 at 05:23:36PM -0500, thelema wrote: > On Tue, 09 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote: < > > > It is nothing to do with having something published in Freenet, it is > > the simple mathematics of it. See GJs freesite. > > > I've read the freesite. That argument was proposed when this argument > was first had. I'm still confused as to why the argument is convincing > this time. The 10% retrieval failure rate is, in my opinion, highly > exaggerated, and if freenet faile to retrieve a file 10% of the time you > request it, we should fix *that*, not put more data into freenet which > will push chunks out faster.
It hardly matters whether retrieval success is 90% or 99%, if you are trying retrieve 100 parts without redundancy you are still fucked (2e-5% or 36% success). In a system where retrieval cannot be guaranteed, redundancy is necessary when splitting so as to offset the normal exponential decay when a file is split into many parts. It is ridiculous that we should sacrifice aspects of the network to achieve 1 in 1000 failure rather than something acceptable like 1 in 50 or 100, so that files split into 100 parts "only" should fail 1 time in 10. -- Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
