[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19881 - branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store

entryTotalLength); > + do { > + fc.read(bf); > + } while (bf.hasRemaining()); > + return new Entry(bf); > + } > + > /** >* Samples to take on key count estimation >*/ Is there any limit on the size of the old items file? Would it enable rekeying should we discover we need it? -- 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/20080514/f8252cf8/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Daniel Cheng [2008-05-14 19:31:37]: > >> On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Florent Daigni?re >> wrote: >> > * Daniel Cheng [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: >> > > On 5/14/08, Florent

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19875 - in trunk/freenet/src/freenet: io/comm support

return new Byte((byte)b); > } else if (type.equals(Short.class)) { > return new Short(dis.readShort()); > > Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/support/ShortBuffer.java > === &

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

ossible to know if an > identity is a secondary identity or a primary that doesn't publish its > trustlist. And identites that publish their trustlist can't be tied > together, because lists will be different... > > > If you see a problem, talk now or never (tm) NextGen$ ;) That sounds nice and flexible. -- 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/20080514/ff77a5b0/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Daniel Cheng [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: > > On 5/14/08, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * j16sdiz at freenetproject.org > [2008-05-13 16:11:59]: > > > > > > > Author: j16sdiz > > > > Date: 2008-05-13

[freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

Matthew Toseland a ?crit : > On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote: >> Hi, >> >> I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm >> confronted to a choice : >> >> The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think >> it could be usefull to allow local

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 |> My store had filled to 100% in less than 72 hours (that would be |> slightly less than 1 Gb of data), so I doubt that it really stores |> anything past the last week at best. And one week isn't exactly what we |> should aim for when talking about

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Jano [2008-05-14 > 12:55:49]: > >> Florent Daigni?re wrote: >> >> > * Jano [2008-05-14 >> > 11:21:05]: >> > >> >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. >> >> >> >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

eason for now. -- 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/20080514/426aecb6/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

a good incentive to keep their nodes up. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/02b04a1c/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

one ? > > > > > > > I was planning to implement JVM-based AES (bug 2330), this test is > > > just a casual test to verify the pure java implementation and jvm > > > implementation matches. > > > > > > > Well then you should be testing it against the live jvm's code and not > > some pre-computed value if that's the point... > > > > Anyway I do suggest you check it against known to be good values: > > http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/fips-197.pdf for > > instance. > > > > No, > The code we are using is *not* FIPS-197 compliance. The standard test > vector does not test the use cases we have. Okay my bad I didn't check it... still, could we check our code against their test vectors anyway? On top of the checks you've already written... That might catch things like the infamous encryption bug we had at some point. (The code was fine on .5, the usecase changed on .7 and it wasn't anymore) -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/74b82e59/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Jano [2008-05-14 > 11:21:05]: > >> > 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

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On 5/14/08, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * j16sdiz at freenetproject.org [2008-05-13 > 16:11:59]: > > > Author: j16sdiz > > Date: 2008-05-13 16:11:59 + (Tue, 13 May 2008) > > New Revision: 19914 > > > > Added: > >trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/RijndaelTest.java > > Log: > > JUnit

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

ext part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/542409a1/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Victor Denisov wrote: > -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- > Hash: SHA1 > > | 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-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Ian Clarke wrote: > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Toseland > 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

[freenet-dev] plugins/build.xml

Fix to plugins/build.xml to correctly specify paths, assuming normal svn checkout of both plugins/ and freenet/ Evan Daniel Index: build.xml === --- build.xml (revision 19885) +++ build.xml (working copy) @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ -

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19918 - in trunk/freenet: src/freenet/crypt/ciphers test/freenet/crypt test/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 4:45 AM, wrote: > Author: dbkr > Date: 2008-05-13 20:45:14 + (Tue, 13 May 2008) > New Revision: 19918 > > Added: >trunk/freenet/test/freenet/crypt/ciphers/ >trunk/freenet/test/freenet/crypt/ciphers/RijndaelTest.java > Removed: >

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

and > plain text, enipher it, get the ciphertext. > Using our implementation or a 3rd party one ? > I was planning to implement JVM-based AES (bug 2330), this test is > just a casual test to verify the pure java implementation and jvm > implementation matches. > Well then you should be testing it against the live jvm's code and not some pre-computed value if that's the point... Anyway I do suggest you check it against known to be good values: http://csrc.nist.gov/publications/fips/fips197/fips-197.pdf for instance. -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/ea8aeecc/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] Website not the big problem atm? was Re: Content Management System

ation/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/7eeb4fa2/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

mind putting a reference in a comment please ? -- next part -- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: Digital signature URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080514/6187f826/attachment.pgp>

[freenet-dev] Website not the big problem atm? was Re: Content Management System

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 10:06 PM, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > * Ian Clarke [2008-05-13 13:45:18]: > > On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:59 PM, Matthew Toseland > > wrote: > > > As nextgens pointed out recently, our current website has a 40% > conversion > > > rate - that is, 40% of our unique

[freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 | I disagree. Your actual bandwidth usage is determined by how many requests the | other nodes send you. This is largely determined by the *average bandwidth | limit* across the whole network. If we increase the average bandwidth limit, | we increase

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

* Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: On 5/14/08, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-13 16:11:59]: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-13 16:11:59 + (Tue, 13 May 2008) New Revision: 19914 Added:

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

* Jano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:21:05]: 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

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Victor Denisov wrote: -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 | 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,

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Ian Clarke wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: On 5/14/08, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-13 16:11:59]: Author: j16sdiz Date:

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 | My store had filled to 100% in less than 72 hours (that would be | slightly less than 1 Gb of data), so I doubt that it really stores | anything past the last week at best. And one week isn't exactly what we | should aim for when talking about data

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

* Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 19:31:37]: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: On 5/14/08, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

* Jano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 12:55:49]: Florent Daignière wrote: * Jano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:21:05]: Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume downloads. Thus,

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

Florent Daignière wrote: * Jano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 12:55:49]: Florent Daignière wrote: * Jano [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:21:05]: Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB. However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to

[freenet-dev] plugins/build.xml

Fix to plugins/build.xml to correctly specify paths, assuming normal svn checkout of both plugins/ and freenet/ Evan Daniel Index: build.xml === --- build.xml (revision 19885) +++ build.xml (working copy) @@ -2,8 +2,8 @@ !--

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19914 - trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers

On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 8:58 PM, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 19:31:37]: On Wed, May 14, 2008 at 2:33 PM, Florent Daignière [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: * Daniel Cheng [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-14 11:34:19]: On 5/14/08, Florent

Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 10:21, Jano wrote: Ian Clarke wrote: On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 12:53 PM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] 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.

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote: Hi, I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm confronted to a choice : The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you think it could be usefull to allow local identities to set

Re: [freenet-dev] WoT plugin : decision

On Wednesday 14 May 2008 17:54, Julien Cornuwel wrote: Matthew Toseland a écrit : On Monday 12 May 2008 18:14, you wrote: Hi, I'm having interrogations about the use of the WoT plugin and I'm confronted to a choice : The plugin is able to handle multiple local identites. But do you

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19875 - in trunk/freenet/src/freenet: io/comm support

On Friday 09 May 2008 15:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-09 14:28:23 + (Fri, 09 May 2008) New Revision: 19875 Added: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/support/ByteBufferInputStream.java Modified: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/io/comm/FreenetInetAddress.java

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19881 - branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store

On Friday 09 May 2008 18:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-09 17:02:34 + (Fri, 09 May 2008) New Revision: 19881 Modified: branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store/SaltedHashFreenetStore.java Log: Store resize tweak Modified:

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19891 - branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store

On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-11 10:24:22 + (Sun, 11 May 2008) New Revision: 19891 Modified: branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store/SaltedHashFreenetStore.java Log: Quadratic Probing (datastore resize disabled)

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19881 - branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 May 2008 18:02, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-09 17:02:34 + (Fri, 09 May 2008) New Revision: 19881 Modified:

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19875 - in trunk/freenet/src/freenet: io/comm support

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Friday 09 May 2008 15:28, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-09 14:28:23 + (Fri, 09 May 2008) New Revision: 19875 Added: trunk/freenet/src/freenet/support/ByteBufferInputStream.java

Re: [freenet-dev] [freenet-cvs] r19891 - branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store

On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Author: j16sdiz Date: 2008-05-11 10:24:22 + (Sun, 11 May 2008) New Revision: 19891 Modified: