On Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:38, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > > It could be related to the fact that I've only been able to dedicate > > > about 2 Gb for my store, but I doubt it. > > > > That certainly won't help. > > What evidence is there that people need to have multi-gigabyte > datastores? We aren't necessarily helping ourselves by telling people > they need to devote anywhere from 1-5% of their total hard disks to > Freenet, unless it *really is* necessary. Freenet enthusiasts may be > ok with this, but casual users probably won't be, and we *need* casual > users. > > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB.
How big is your current hard disk? Do you have any ideas for some empirical or scientific way to determine how much storage is needed? AFAICS "as much as possible" has to be a good thing for data retention, no? Assuming a node uses 16K/sec bandwidth, which is the default, uses the same output as input (normally input is a bit lower than output, but not a lot lower), and uses 50% of that for receiving data it didn't have before, and has a 100MB cache, a new block which isn't subsequently requested should reach the bottom of the LRU in 3.55 hours. Data will stay in the store for much longer however. But that relies on us being able to find it, and the nodes it is stored to being online. Being able to find it is probably largely a matter at the moment of location churn. We need to deal with this. There are some ideas, we need to talk to oskar and vive about them. The nodes we stored the data to being online is probably intractable. :( > > Ian. -------------- 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/20080513/7e983135/attachment.pgp>
