-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
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
On Wednesday 14 May 2008 10:21, Jano wrote:
> 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
* 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 downloads.
> >> Thus, downloading
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
* 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
> potential of a lot of waste in
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
> |
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
-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
* 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
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,
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
-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
* 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,
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
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.
-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, unless it *really is* necessary.
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:38, 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
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:10, Michael Rogers wrote:
> Victor Denisov wrote:
> > Input Rate: 17.6 KiB/sec (of 300 KiB)
> > Output Rate: 15.9 KiB/sec (of 200 KiB)
> > Total Input: 4.83 GiB (28.3 KiB/sec)
> > Total Output: 5.66 GiB (33.2 KiB/sec)
> >
> > Used Java memory: 122 MiB
> > Allocated Java
On Monday 12 May 2008 20:19, Victor Denisov wrote:
> | On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
> |> | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
> |> have it.
> |>
> |> Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
> |> available bandwidth.
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 multi-gigabyte
datastores? We aren't
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
|> | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
|> have it.
|>
|> Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
|> available bandwidth. Freenet's the
Victor Denisov wrote:
> Input Rate: 17.6 KiB/sec (of 300 KiB)
> Output Rate: 15.9 KiB/sec (of 200 KiB)
> Total Input: 4.83 GiB (28.3 KiB/sec)
> Total Output: 5.66 GiB (33.2 KiB/sec)
>
> Used Java memory: 122 MiB
> Allocated Java memory: 127 MiB
> Maximum Java memory: 284 MiB
> Running threads:
On Monday 12 May 2008 20:19, Victor Denisov wrote:
| On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
| | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
| have it.
|
| Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
| available bandwidth. Freenet's
On Monday 12 May 2008 23:10, Michael Rogers wrote:
Victor Denisov wrote:
Input Rate: 17.6 KiB/sec (of 300 KiB)
Output Rate: 15.9 KiB/sec (of 200 KiB)
Total Input: 4.83 GiB (28.3 KiB/sec)
Total Output: 5.66 GiB (33.2 KiB/sec)
Used Java memory: 122 MiB
Allocated Java memory: 127 MiB
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 multi-gigabyte
datastores?
On Tuesday 13 May 2008 19:38, 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
-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, unless it *really is* necessary.
-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
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
| | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
| have it.
|
| Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
| available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p
Victor Denisov wrote:
Input Rate: 17.6 KiB/sec (of 300 KiB)
Output Rate: 15.9 KiB/sec (of 200 KiB)
Total Input: 4.83 GiB (28.3 KiB/sec)
Total Output: 5.66 GiB (33.2 KiB/sec)
Used Java memory: 122 MiB
Allocated Java memory: 127 MiB
Maximum Java memory: 284 MiB
Running threads: 152/700
On Thursday 08 May 2008 23:22, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> I've made a bug on the bug tracker to which I've linked all the things that
I
> think *might* be important for 0.7.1. Please contribute to this bug by
> setting it related to anything that you think it should be related to, or
> reply to
On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
> | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
> have it.
>
> Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
> available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently
> underutilizes my
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
have it.
Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently
underutilizes my upload limit (~ 2
I've made a bug on the bug tracker to which I've linked all the things that I
think *might* be important for 0.7.1. Please contribute to this bug by
setting it related to anything that you think it should be related to, or
reply to this thread.
Stuff I think is important for the next release:
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
| Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
have it.
Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently
underutilizes my upload limit (~ 2
On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
| Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
have it.
Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently
underutilizes my upload
On Thursday 08 May 2008 23:22, Matthew Toseland wrote:
I've made a bug on the bug tracker to which I've linked all the things that
I
think *might* be important for 0.7.1. Please contribute to this bug by
setting it related to anything that you think it should be related to, or
reply to
I've made a bug on the bug tracker to which I've linked all the things that I
think *might* be important for 0.7.1. Please contribute to this bug by
setting it related to anything that you think it should be related to, or
reply to this thread.
Stuff I think is important for the next release:
39 matches
Mail list logo
