On Wednesday 20 January 2010 15:44:22 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 8:54 AM, Matthew Toseland > <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > > > 4) Capacity. IMHO if Freenet is working well we should not need insert on > > demand: Its capacity should be much greater than it is now, and we should > > be able to just insert and fetch the data. > > Actually, I'm not completely convinced this is a problem. At present, > I believe most of our data persistence issues stem from node churn, > not blocks falling out of individual stores. Right now that's just a > (somewhat justified) hunch, but I have sufficient data to investigate > in more detail.
I have some fascinating data on this from MHK testers, which leads to all sorts of interesting theories. I will be posting it shortly. I agree that in theory Freenet ought to have a huge capacity. And if we need to increase redundancy a bit to enable that then so be it. In which case insert on demand hopefully won't be necessary - you'll just click a file and get it. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100121/d06cfd9b/attachment.pgp>
