On Sun, Oct 27, 2002 at 08:18:44AM +0000, Chris Dennis wrote: > On Sat, 2002-10-26 at 22:30, fish wrote: > > > > On Sat, 26 Oct 2002, Michael Wiktowy wrote: > > > > > When you have a minute (I realize that you are busy these days) could > > > you elabourate on how encouraging low HTL requests in the network > > > is silly. I would believe that the opposite is true and am curious what > > > reasons you have to think the way you do. We already encourage lower > > > HTLs by using the maxHTL setting in the configuration. > > > > because if you insert your streams/low traffic site at htl=5, they get > > very difficult to retrieve :-p HTL 10 is recommended. If you don't push hard enough in the first place, it won't be there when people try to request it. > > Which comes back to the previous discussion about it being difficult to > *maintain* a site at the required HTL depth. Maintain a site? Nobody ever said freenet offered permanent storage. > > Somebody suggested using a 'skip the local node' flag, but from looking > at the CVS, that only seems to be used by Fproxy's splitfile retrievel > interface, and doesn't feature in the FCP protocol at all. No, it just hasn't been implemented by any of the current clients. The code is there IMHO. > > cheers > > Chris
-- Matthew Toseland toad at amphibian.dyndns.org amphibian at users.sourceforge.net Freenet/Coldstore open source hacker. Employed full time by Freenet Project Inc. from 11/9/02 to 11/11/02. http://freenetproject.org/ -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20021027/5e3102c8/attachment.pgp>
