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.
Totally in agreement with this. > > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume downloads. Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one go has the potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time). I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now.
