Obviously a big change such as that should be kept on a branch for the time being. Please create one when you have something to commit.
On Tuesday 15 April 2008 17:13, Matthew Toseland wrote: > On Tuesday 15 April 2008 14:29, Daniel Cheng wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:33 PM, Matthew Toseland > > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > > > > On Tuesday 15 April 2008 01:16, Daniel Cheng wrote: > > > > On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 6:07 AM, Matthew Toseland > > > > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > > > On Monday 14 April 2008 08:53, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote: > > > > > > Author: j16sdiz > > > > > > Date: 2008-04-14 07:53:47 +0000 (Mon, 14 Apr 2008) > > > > > > New Revision: 19306 > > > > > > > > > > > > Modified: > > > > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/store/BerkeleyDBFreenetStore.java > > > > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/store/FreenetStore.java > > > > > > trunk/freenet/src/freenet/store/RAMFreenetStore.java > > > > > > Log: > > > > > > change javadoc and RAMFS.put() to match BDBFS.put() behaviour > > > > > > > > > > Eh? Did you actually read BDBFS.put() ? > > > > > > > > Yes, what it do is a StorableBlock.equals(), which doesn't check the > > > > actual data afaik. > > > > > > And now you don't even do that in RAMFS? Or am I missing something? PS it > does > > > check the data. > > > > Revert it then. > > > > I am working on a new datastore, which have pluggable index and file > storage. > > There should be a BDBFS plugin. Then we can get rid of the old BDBFS code. > > But also an index-in-RAM plugin etc... it would open up the way to lots of > different backends, maybe one of them will be both stable and fast. :) > > > > Do you think online database reconstruction is doable? That would need > putting > > the database into a readonly mode temporary. Not sure if our routing > algorithm > > can handle that. > > This is an interesting idea. It would in all likelihood be detectable > remotely; it would result in data being rerequested that didn't need to be > rerequested (freesites if the user browses them, but especially persistent > downloads). Having said that, some time soon after 0.7.0 ships we will have > proper persistent downloads... and the datastore is remotely probeable right > now anyway. In the future, we'll have a separate, possibly ephemeral, > client-layer-only cache, for freesites etc. > > Certainly it wouldn't break the routing algorithm, although it would introduce > some noise. It's simply a question of whether it would have any security > impact. It may be a good idea, certainly it would improve usability. Although > just the recent changes to reconstruction plus not reading the store file > unless we need to should speed up reconstruction considerably. > > > > Regards, > > Daniel Cheng > -------------- 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/20080415/94f331ff/attachment.pgp>
