On Fri, Jun 08, 2001 at 03:46:22PM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:38:33PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote:
> <>
> > > Once it is passed upstream the node will no longer be queried (at least from that
> > > direction) right? So if you delete a datum after so many requests, it is
... Well, since no-one else has, I went in and fixed this bug in
FindJava.exe
Now we can release a version of the installer that DOESN'T confuse people
without Java.
(For those not aware of the current situation, if a user doesn't have a Java
runtime environment already installed, the Freenet Inst
Well, since no-one else did, I went in and fixed this bug in FindJava.exe
Now we can release a version of the installer that DOESN'T confuse people
without Java.
(For those not aware of the current situation, if a user doesn't have a Java
runtime environment already installed, the Freenet Installe
Even so, it shouldn't be done. The Right Way(tm) to do it is to make
Freenet itself a little more mallible to the needs of unstable nodes (the
ARKs in 0.4 are a step twards this). Forcing your node to use a only a few
other nodes is a really bad idea.
-Original Message-
From: Emil Mikuli
> Even so, it shouldn't be done. The Right Way(tm) to do it is to make
> Freenet itself a little more mallible to the needs of unstable nodes (the
> ARKs in 0.4 are a step twards this).
Point noted.
> Forcing your node to use a only a few
> other nodes is a really bad idea.
It's forcing itse
Even so, it shouldn't be done. The Right Way(tm) to do it is to make
Freenet itself a little more mallible to the needs of unstable nodes (the
ARKs in 0.4 are a step twards this). Forcing your node to use a only a few
other nodes is a really bad idea.
-Original Message-
From: Emil Mikul
OK, this is my first post of freenet-devl, and possibly my last, but it's
an idea that just occurred to me and might be worth considering.
Um, OK, first motivation, then. The problem I'm looking at is the fact
that freenet's redundancy eats space. To store 1TB of stuff on freenet, at
say 6x redu
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:38:33PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote:
<>
> > Once it is passed upstream the node will no longer be queried (at least
> > from that
> > direction) right? So if you delete a datum after so many requests, it is
> > trivial for a
> > specific node to force that data out of the
you think?
>
> ~mark
>
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
--
loggers melt cry riot
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010608/ca63c30d/attachment.pgp>
Not a bad idea. I'm not sure that the way you notify of diminished shares
existing is necessarily a good one, but the idea of dropping large files
in this way isn't bad. Also, it may not be as effective when we have file
splitting.
But assuming we did something like this, it might be a better i
Wouldn't a scattering scheme do the job?
If a malicious node has chosen a target, then move the target.
Maybe the following scheme for scattering would work (condition -> something
is triggered saying "hey, loadsa requests"):
*duplicate target to two new nodes
*(perhaps) delete target in
> >Would it be a good idea to be able to dynamically make the local
> >node connect to specified outside nodes?
> >
> >nodes.config just isn't doing it for me.
>
> No. The way Freenet works, it is SUPPOSED to find out nodes that you would
> otherwise have no clue existed. Makeing this process m
OK, this is my first post of freenet-devl, and possibly my last, but it's
an idea that just occurred to me and might be worth considering.
Um, OK, first motivation, then. The problem I'm looking at is the fact
that freenet's redundancy eats space. To store 1TB of stuff on freenet, at
say 6x red
On Thu, Jun 07, 2001 at 03:38:33PM -0400, Tavin Cole wrote:
<>
> > Once it is passed upstream the node will no longer be queried (at least from that
> > direction) right? So if you delete a datum after so many requests, it is trivial
>for a
> > specific node to force that data out of the data st
Wouldn't a scattering scheme do the job?
If a malicious node has chosen a target, then move the target.
Maybe the following scheme for scattering would work (condition -> something
is triggered saying "hey, loadsa requests"):
*duplicate target to two new nodes
*(perhaps) delete target in
pete at petertodd.ca http://www.petertodd.ca
-- next part --
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 232 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20010608/9353aa52/attachment.pgp>
Here's a crude little map of 20 Freenet nodes that I just did up using
the GraphViz Perl module. All inserts were done with a htl of 5 The
average request htl is shown on the edges between nodes. The map needs
more nodes in it obviously, only a few had any connections at all to
other nodes and whe
17 matches
Mail list logo
