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 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 long as current CHKs. Is this a problem? I would really appreciate > > input from users, particularly those who upload and download files: > > - Is it a problem for the keys to be really long (twice as long as current > > CHKs)? CHKs are copied and pasted, so maybe not a problem? > > - Is it true that a great many downloads get stuck at 0% for a long time, > > showing 0 blocks of 1 if you mouseover the percentage? > > > > Example: > > c...@4~2ftxtbe2so8nzzizneyrn5soaffk-hqsvjbhlc77a,97XjJekfSl8HxkJFYhj4cdo9n7s > >0exhE-EWMr8zuVxM,AAIC--8/chaosradio_142.mp3 > > > > -> (something like) > > > > d...@97xjjekfsl8hxkjfyhj4cdo9n7s0exhe-ewmr8zuvxm,4~2FTXtBE2So8NZZIzneYrn5SOa > >FFk-hQsvjBHLc77A,ughDyCjP0jeBuRRx33nULUb4Pl-6Dk9DrDrH1miXCj0,VIOAKDzD~YIzrD5 > >NBbD3v5SxOiwYXg84qQYdbkJA3bo,AAIC--8/chaosradio_142.mp3 > > > > GORY DETAILS: > > > > Currently we use: > > CHK@<routing key>,<crypto key>,<extra> > > > > (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK) > > > > The new key type would be: > > > > DHK@<data hash>,<routing key 1>,<routing key 2>,<routing key > > 3>,<extra>/<ignore filename> > > > > (A filename is mandatory, and is always ignored, so does not impact on the > > rest of the key). > > > > We might allow any number of routing keys from 2 upwards, for more > > redundancy at the cost of a longer URI, but IMHO 3 is a good default > > number. > > > > You would get such a key when you insert a file as d...@. > > > > Arguably nobody ever types CHKs even now, and copy and paste allows for > > fairly long keys. Thoughts? > > I doubt copy-pasted keys that are long would pose a problem in most > situations. But I can think of a couple of considerations: > > 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 keys get long enough that 2 lines isn't always enough, then it > might become hasslesome to undo the linebreaking (even if the linebreaking is > due to misuse of the news client). Maybe the freenet web interface should > notice extra newlines and remove them automatically?
Hmmm, because of NNTP. We might be able to do this... > > 2. How much bandwidth do keys take? Do they get sent with every packet? (I > don't know much about Freenet internals yet, sorry!). If lots of users offer > very little bandwidth each, would the extra key size mean potentially slowing > things down? No, this would just be the top level, the keys you quote on FMS or client on links. It would not affect lower levels.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
