Gianni Johansson <giannijohansson at attbi.com> writes: > > Ewww. That's not how freenet works. > I wouldn't claim to know "how freenet works". > I'll follow this trend by agreeing that I don't know how freenet works, but think that inserts at low HTL are not the way to do things.
> >Longer HTLs mean the data gets > > closer to the keyspace focus, which means it is MUCH more findable, and > > improves routing. > I think the effect of the data being inserted from many different points in > the network is more important than the insertions htl. If you make the > default htl too high people won't re-insert at all. > > The only difference between a low HTL and a high HTL insert is the amount of time you have to wait before sending data; otherwise they're identical in resources consumed. As healing should be a non-blocking process, I don't see any reason not to use a high HTL. As far as having data inserted from many points goes; I'd much rather have one insert at HTL=15 than 30 inserts at HTL=1. Freenet's routing algorithm doesn't search randomly, so just having the data in more places isn't sufficient. It's got to be the right places. > >Low HTL reinserts just make it replicate a bit, > > generally where it shouldn't be. > >Of course I'd defer to Oskar here, but > > that's my assessment. whether HTL=5 is low enough to fall under the "non-specialized" level or not is debatable, but I'm definitely for higher HTLs, so we don't have freenet become random routing. Thelema -- E-mail: thelema314 at swbell.net Raabu and Piisu GPG 1024D/36352AAB fpr:756D F615 B4F3 BFFC 02C7 84B7 D8D7 6ECE 3635 2AAB _______________________________________________ devl mailing list devl at freenetproject.org http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
