Matthew Toseland wrote:
>> Bluetooth?
>
> Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
> measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places
6]^=CL[x];
> >> -
> >> - System.out.println();
> >> - }
> >> - }
> >> }
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> ___
> >> cvs mailing list
> >> cvs at freenetproject.org
> >> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
> >>
> >>
> >
> > ___
> > Devl mailing list
> > Devl at freenetproject.org
> > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
> >
> ___
> Devl mailing list
> Devl at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
>
>
-- 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/20080515/c0c8f147/attachment.pgp>
Ian Clarke wrote:
> I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
> be >>client apps bundling Freenet<<, not the other way around.
>
> Ian.
>
>
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready
ations Freesite, if only for its help.
>
It's ugly. it does more harm than good imho
-- 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/piper
ailable
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080515/0e2c7730/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:28 PM, Michael Rogers
wrote:
>>> That would be a very valuable system, I just don't see what it's got to
>>> do with Freenet.
>>
>> Ummm, the fact that it would be a routable small world darknet?
>
> That's an assumption, not a fact. As far as I know there's little
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/20080515/5b8f24a5/attachment.pgp>
What's the problem with the 192-bit test?
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 16:35, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
> Author: j16sdiz
> Date: 2008-05-14 15:35:44 + (Wed, 14 May 2008)
> New Revision: 19930
>
> Modified:
>trunk/freenet/test/freenet/crypt/ciphers/RijndaelTest.java
> Log:
>
- KEY[x+16]^=CL[x];
> -
> - System.out.println();
> - }
> - }
> }
>
>
>
> ___
> cvs mailing list
> cvs at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
>
-- 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/20080515/c3d99907/attachment.pgp>
is, "[" + name + "] Resize newStoreSize=" +
> newStoreSize
+ ", shinkNow=" + shrinkNow);
>
> assert newStoreSize > 0;
> + // TODO assert newStoreSize > (141 * (3 * 3) + 13 * 3) * 2; //
> store size
too small
>
> synchronized (cleanerLock) {
> if (newStoreSize == this.storeSize)
> @@ -1088,8 +1126,8 @@
> /**
>* Lock the entry
>*
> - * This lock is not reentrance. No threads except
> Cleaner
should hold more
> - * then one lock at a time (or deadlock may occur).
> + * This lock is not reentrance. No threads except
> Cleaner
should hold more then
> + * one lock at a time (or deadlock may occur).
>*/
> private boolean lockEntry(long offset) {
> if (logDEBUG && logLOCK)
> @@ -1140,7 +1178,7 @@
>* Use this method to stop all read / write before database shutdown.
>*
>* @param timeout
> - *the maximum time to wait in milliseconds.
> + * the maximum time to wait in milliseconds.
>*/
> private boolean lockGlobal(long timeout) {
> synchronized (lockMap) {
>
> ___
> cvs mailing list
> cvs at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
>
-- 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/20080515/5000b10a/attachment.pgp>
> /**
>* Lock the entry
>*
> - * This lock is not reentrance. No threads except
> Cleaner
should hold more
> - * then one lock at a time (or deadlock may occur).
> + * This lock is not reentrance. No threads except
> Cleaner
should hold more then
> + * one lock at a time (or deadlock may occur).
>*/
> private boolean lockEntry(long offset) {
> if (logDEBUG && logLOCK)
> @@ -1140,7 +1178,7 @@
>* Use this method to stop all read / write before database shutdown.
>*
>* @param timeout
> - *the maximum time to wait in milliseconds.
> + * the maximum time to wait in milliseconds.
>*/
> private boolean lockGlobal(long timeout) {
> synchronized (lockMap) {
>
> ___
> cvs mailing list
> cvs at freenetproject.org
> http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cvs
>
>
-- 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/20080515/b88d3b89/attachment.pgp>
ttachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080515/c1d7a786/attachment.pgp>
attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080515/8c73e710/attachment.pgp>
t; >> - oldItems.clear();
> >> }
> >>
> >> + private void writeOldItem(FileChannel fc, Entry e) throws
IOException {
> >> + ByteBuffer bf = e.toByteBuffer();
> >> + do {
> >> + fc.write(bf);
> >> + } while (bf.hasRemaining());
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + private Entry readOldItem(FileChannel fc) throws
IOException {
> >> + ByteBuffer bf = ByteBuffer.allocate((int)
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?
>
> The current code have no limit on size. Unless you try shrink the
> store to some insane small number,
> it should have no more then a few hundred items.
Ok.
>
> > Would it enable rekeying should we discover we need it?
>
> What kind of rekeying are you looking for?
> if you are asking for new salt -- no, you need the route key for that
> to do that immediatly.
-- 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/20080515/843deb47/attachment.pgp>
the same once they've seen it?
>
> No, if they were accepting non-trusted certificates, there is no point
> in rejecting a trusted one...
>
And if we change it again, they won't reject it as long as it's a trusted
cert. Okay.
-- 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/20080515/3c5fcf6e/attachment.pgp>
", offset=" +
> > offset[i]);
> >> + writeEntry(entry, offset[i]);
> >> + incWrites();
> >> + return;
> >> + }
> >> + } finally {
> >> + unlockEntry(offset[i]);
> >> + }
> >> + }
> >> +
> >> + // no free blocks?
> >> + int i = random.nextInt(offset.length);
> >
> > You should try to write to an empty slot, of course... if all are full, is
it
> > better to overwrite an empty slot rather than the first one?
>
> All slot in offset[] are occupied when we reach this code.
Ok.
> Have to pick a random one to overwrite
Is it better to overwrite a random one or the first one?
-- 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/20080515/7445586d/attachment.pgp>
e: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20080515/167353b7/attachment.pgp>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 7:08 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Sunday 11 May 2008 11:24, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-11 10:24:22 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19891
>>
>> Modified:
>>
>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 3:56 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2008 15:28, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-09 14:28:23 + (Fri, 09 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19875
>>
>> Added:
>>
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 5:18 AM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 09 May 2008 18:02, j16sdiz at freenetproject.org wrote:
>> Author: j16sdiz
>> Date: 2008-05-09 17:02:34 + (Fri, 09 May 2008)
>> New Revision: 19881
>>
>> Modified:
>>
>
FromDigestedKey(byte[] digestedKey, long
> storeSize)
{
> + long keyValue = keyToLong(digestedKey);
> + // h + 141 i^2 + 13 i
> + return new long[] {//
> + ((keyValue + 141 * (0 * 0) + 13 * 0) & Long.MAX_VALUE) %
> storeSize, // i
= 0
> + ((keyValue + 141 * (1 * 1) + 13 * 1) & Long.MAX_VALUE)
> %
storeSize, // i = 1
> + ((keyValue + 141 * (2 * 2) + 13 * 2) & Long.MAX_VALUE)
> %
storeSize, // i = 2
> + ((keyValue + 141 * (3 * 3) + 13 * 3) & Long.MAX_VALUE)
> %
storeSize, // i = 3
> + };
These are all going to be quite close to keyValue, no? Is this intentional?
> }
>
> + private long keyToLong(byte[] key) {
> + return (((long) (key[0]) << 0) + //
> + (((long) key[1]) << 8) + //
> + (((long) key[3]) << 16) + //
> + (((long) key[4]) << 24) + //
> + (((long) key[5]) << 32) + //
> + (((long) key[6]) << 40) + //
> + (((long) key[7]) << 48));
What about 56?
> + }
> +
> // - Statistics (a.k.a. lies)
> private final Object statLock = new Object();
> private long hits;
-- 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/20080515/e7634c5d/attachment.pgp>
Hi,
Due to a recent debian-specific bug in openssl, I've regenerated
the SSL certificates on emu; here are the new fingerprints:
subject= /C=KR/ST=Daejeon/L=Daejeon/O=freenetproject.org/OU=StartCom Free
Certificate Member/CN=emu.freenetproject.org/[EMAIL PROTECTED]
SHA1
On Thursday 15 May 2008 06:11, Daniel Cheng wrote:
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:
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 14:03:54]:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 13:56, you wrote:
Hi,
Due to a recent debian-specific bug in openssl, I've regenerated
the SSL certificates on emu; here are the new fingerprints:
subject=
On Thursday 15 May 2008 01:00, Daniel Cheng wrote:
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:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 14:20, Florent Daignière wrote:
* Matthew Toseland [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 14:03:54]:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 13:56, you wrote:
Hi,
Due to a recent debian-specific bug in openssl, I've regenerated
the SSL certificates on emu; here are the new
On Sunday 11 May 2008 18:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11 17:05:03 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
New Revision: 19897
Modified:
branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store/SaltedHashFreenetStore.java
Log:
Fix datastore resize
...
-
On Sunday 11 May 2008 18:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11 17:05:03 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
New Revision: 19897
Modified:
branches/saltedhashstore/freenet/src/freenet/store/SaltedHashFreenetStore.java
Log:
Fix datastore resize
Also, does the code check
Very nice, is this complete?
On Sunday 11 May 2008 08:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11 07:27:21 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
New Revision: 19887
Added:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/l10n/freenet.l10n.zh-cn.properties
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 + (Tue, 13 May 2008)
New Revision: 19912
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael.java
Log:
No Monte Carlo test for Rijndael
Huh?
Modified:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:22 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Sunday 11 May 2008 18:05, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11 17:05:03 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
New Revision: 19897
Modified:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 + (Tue, 13 May 2008)
New Revision: 19912
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/crypt/ciphers/Rijndael.java
Log:
No, it's not.
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Very nice, is this complete?
On Sunday 11 May 2008 08:27, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-11 07:27:21 + (Sun, 11 May 2008)
New Revision: 19887
Added:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 15:55:23]:
Author: toad
Date: 2008-05-15 15:55:23 + (Thu, 15 May 2008)
New Revision: 19945
Modified:
trunk/freenet/src/freenet/clients/http/staticfiles/defaultbookmarks.dat
Log:
Add The Freenet Applications Freesite, if only for
On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:03, Florent Daignière wrote:
* [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2008-05-15 15:55:23]:
Author: toad
Date: 2008-05-15 15:55:23 + (Thu, 15 May 2008)
New Revision: 19945
Modified:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-13 16:10:32 + (Tue, 13 May 2008)
New Revision: 19912
Modified:
Matthew Toseland wrote:
Bluetooth?
Even less bandwidth than wifi, no? We need several gigabits (over a range
measured in feet) for it to be viable.
Who says we need 8 GB per exchange for it to be viable? Seems to me that
even a few megabytes a day would be useful in a lot of places (or a
Ian Clarke wrote:
I do agree that bundling can make user's lives easier, but it should
be client apps bundling Freenet, not the other way around.
Ian.
I can certainly understand where you're coming from, and agree that it
would be ideal, but I don't think that Freenet is ready to be
On Fri, May 16, 2008 at 1:13 AM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thursday 15 May 2008 17:01, Daniel Cheng wrote:
On Thu, May 15, 2008 at 10:30 PM, Matthew Toseland
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 17:10, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Author: j16sdiz
Date: 2008-05-13
39 matches
Mail list logo
