On Thursday 25 October 2001 16:13, Timm Murray wrote: > > Hi, > > > > It occurred to me that there might be some benefit to inserting freesites > > as a single redundant splitfile containing an archive of the site. (Or > > two archives - one for the static portion and one for today's insert). > > I've suggested this before. The only thing is that viewing Freenet as a > whole, it's better to make lots of requests (thus making nodes learn more > about the network). From the point of view of an individual node operator, > it's better to make fewer requests, thus making the whole process shorter > for that specific set of requests. I think this is one area where we must > find a balance between what is good for the network and what is good for an > individual user. Choosing a small splitfile size would keep the number of requests similar to simply requesting the un-archived site, but with the added advantage of redunancy so it should benefit the user requesting the without being detrimental to the network.
degs > > > This could make both retreiving freesites more reliable due to the > > splitfile redunancy and inserting freesites would work or fail atomically > > rather than leaving a site half inserted on insert failure. > > > > Support for this would be fairly easy to add to fproxy - just a matter of > > inventing a URI syntax for it I guess and having fproxy break files out > > of the archive when requested. > > > > degs > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Devl mailing list > > Devl at freenetproject.org > > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
