On Tuesday 28 October 2003 07:28 am, Some Guy wrote:
> --- Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > You are suggesting that specailization makes no sense in small
> > > networks and that freenet does what is optimal. Ian, please think
> > > about this. In a tiny network were every node was co
On October 29, 2003 12:53 pm, Toad wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:57:56AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> > On October 28, 2003 11:53 pmperspectivehuck wrote:
> > > So what should we do about this? I propose we should do two things.
> > > First make sure that it starts taking network resources in
On Wed, Oct 29, 2003 at 07:57:56AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson wrote:
> On October 28, 2003 11:53 pmperspectivehuck wrote:
> > So what should we do about this? I propose we should do two things. First
> > make sure that it starts taking network resources into account. Meaning
> > that in the NGrouting form
On October 28, 2003 11:53 pmperspectivehuck wrote:
> So what should we do about this? I propose we should do two things. First
> make sure that it starts taking network resources into account. Meaning
> that in the NGrouting formula when calculating the predicted time, we need
> to consider that gi
On Tuesday 28 October 2003 05:15 pm, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:44:43PM -0500, Nick Tarleton spake thusly:
> > > Right now with
> > > the totally random routing due to no specialization freenet can only
> > > store as much retrievable data as 25*n where n is the average size o
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 05:44:43PM -0500, Nick Tarleton spake thusly:
> > Right now with
> > the totally random routing due to no specialization freenet can only store
> > as much retrievable data as 25*n where n is the average size of the
> > datastores on freenet and 25 is the current max htl. No
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 10:35:28AM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:54:11AM +, Ian Clarke spake thusly:
> > No, optimally every node caches everything and there is no
> > specialization whatsoever.
>
> But this greatly reduces the total data storage capacity of the netw
> Right now with
> the totally random routing due to no specialization freenet can only store
> as much retrievable data as 25*n where n is the average size of the
> datastores on freenet and 25 is the current max htl. No bueno.
I would think it'd be greater because although the amount of retrievab
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 11:54:11AM +, Ian Clarke spake thusly:
> No, optimally every node caches everything and there is no
> specialization whatsoever.
But this greatly reduces the total data storage capacity of the network to
just the average size of one datastore.
--
Tracy Reed
http://c
Some Guy wrote:
No, optimally every node caches everything and there is no
specialization whatsoever.
Well, I guess that's "optimal" for redundancy. It certainly isn't
"optimal" from a storage or bandwidth point of view. Maybe that's
the bush we're beating around.
It is optimal for minimizing re
--- Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > You are suggesting that specailization makes no sense in small
> > networks and that freenet does what is optimal. Ian, please think
> > about this. In a tiny network were every node was connected to every
> > other one, specialization still makes
You are suggesting that specailization makes no sense in small
networks and that freenet does what is optimal. Ian, please think
about this. In a tiny network were every node was connected to every
other one, specialization still makes sense.
Optimally each node would be specialized in a portion
--- Ian Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Tracy R Reed wrote:
> > Yes, I agree. However I am concerned that I am not even seeing signs of
> > recovery 48 hours later. The network cannot take that long to converge if
> > it is converging at all.
>
> The network will only converge when this beco
On Tue, Oct 28, 2003 at 01:40:34AM +, Toad spake thusly:
> How exactly did the script work? The store directories are not based on
> the beginning of the key, which is used for specialization purposes.
I iterate over every keyfile in the ds, look at the name of the file, and
if I have already
On Sun, Oct 26, 2003 at 11:36:00PM -0800, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I'm glad that major routing bug was squashed. Well done! But I think there
> is yet one more big thinko somewhere...
>
> It seems that the network is not learning who specializes in what areas of
> the keyspace from successful and fai
On October 27, 2003 11:22 am, Edgar Friendly wrote:
> Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > Note that just because you have your DS with lots of 'A's in it does not
> > mean your node is specialized on 'A'.
>
> I agree with this completely, and hope more people understand this point.
>
> > W
Tracy R Reed wrote:
Yes, I agree. However I am concerned that I am not even seeing signs of
recovery 48 hours later. The network cannot take that long to converge if
it is converging at all.
The network will only converge when this becomes the most effective way
for it to deliver data - while the
On Mon, Oct 27, 2003 at 07:16:40AM -0500, Ed Tomlinson spake thusly:
> Think the routing bug could easily have caused this. Think about it. We
> we using the worst path. So data would follow this. Once a node got
Yes, I agree. However I am concerned that I am not even seeing signs of
recovery
Ed Tomlinson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Note that just because you have your DS with lots of 'A's in it does not mean
> your node is specialized on 'A'.
I agree with this completely, and hope more people understand this point.
> What it should do it influence it to specialize
> near 'A' (no
--- Tracy R Reed <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> It seems that the network is not learning who specializes in what areas of
> the keyspace from successful and failed requests. For a number of weeks
> now I have been running my node with a specially tuned datastore. I wrote
> a script to delete key
On October 27, 2003 02:36 am, Tracy R Reed wrote:
> I'm glad that major routing bug was squashed. Well done! But I think there
> is yet one more big thinko somewhere...
> It seems that the network is not learning who specializes in what areas of
> the keyspace from successful and failed requests.
I'm glad that major routing bug was squashed. Well done! But I think there
is yet one more big thinko somewhere...
It seems that the network is not learning who specializes in what areas of
the keyspace from successful and failed requests. For a number of weeks
now I have been running my node with
22 matches
Mail list logo
