Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content
persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks ago and
it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash
Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as lo
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> GORY DETAILS:
>
> Currently we use:
> CHK@,,
>
> (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
Isn't the first part supposed to be the data hash, and not a routing
key. And what is a routing key anyways? :P
Ho
On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks
> ago and it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs
> (Duplicated Hash Ke
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
contradicts the concept (caching of keys around the key location; unused
content gets dropped)
if a) unwanted content is supposed to be dropped from the network to
make space for fresh stuff a
On Thursday 23 April 2009 17:25:11 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > GORY DETAILS:
> >
> > Currently we use:
> > CHK@,,
> >
> > (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
>
> Isn't the first part supposed to be the da
On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> > content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2
weeks
> > ago and it still h
On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
I dispute the latter.
> 2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
> contradicts the concep
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:15:43 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> > 1. It seems that when keys are posted on FMS (not so much frost),
> > they often get chopped off at 80 characters, leaving the user to
> > remove the newlines by hand. If the
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:23:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ... IF the 3 nodes which stored it to their datastores are online
> when you fetch and there aren't any problems contacting them (e.g. on
> darknet they might have swapped).
I'm still a little confused about what a routing key is. You
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
>> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
>
> Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
> I dispute the latter.
>
>> 2) why add something that t
On Sun, 3 May 2009 01:46:37 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> >> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
> >
> > Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be
> > f
Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content
persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks ago and
it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash
Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as lo
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> GORY DETAILS:
>
> Currently we use:
> CHK@,,
>
> (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
Isn't the first part supposed to be the data hash, and not a routing
key. And what is a routing key anyways? :P
Ho
On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks
> ago and it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs
> (Duplicated Hash Ke
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
contradicts the concept (caching of keys around the key location; unused
content gets dropped)
if a) unwanted content is supposed to be dropped from the network to
make space for fresh stuff a
On Thursday 23 April 2009 17:25:11 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > GORY DETAILS:
> >
> > Currently we use:
> > CHK@,,
> >
> > (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
>
> Isn't the first part supposed to be the da
On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> > content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2
weeks
> > ago and it still h
On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetw...@web.de wrote:
> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
I dispute the latter.
> 2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
> contradicts the concept (
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:15:43 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> > 1. It seems that when keys are posted on FMS (not so much frost),
> > they often get chopped off at 80 characters, leaving the user to
> > remove the newlines by hand. If the
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:23:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ... IF the 3 nodes which stored it to their datastores are online
> when you fetch and there aren't any problems contacting them (e.g. on
> darknet they might have swapped).
I'm still a little confused about what a routing key is. You
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
wrote:
> On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetw...@web.de wrote:
>> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
>
> Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
> I dispute the latter.
>
>> 2) why add something that trie
On Sun, 3 May 2009 01:46:37 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetw...@web.de wrote:
> >> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
> >
> > Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be
> > func
22 matches
Mail list logo
