On 16/06/13 19:55, erp...@gmail.com wrote: > On Sun, Jun 16, 2013 at 6:17 AM, Greg Troxel <g...@ir.bbn.com> wrote: >> True. The biggest challenges I see are >> >> accounting, so you can have some measure of fairness (even among >> friends who are trying to be reasonable, you need a way to know if >> you've accidentally consuemed 10x what you thought you had) >> >> expiration/garbage-collection. There needs to be a way for old shares >> to go away, but it needs to be safe against normal activities, and >> safe against vanishing for a few months.
That should be solved by the design in <https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/1832>. > I may be naive here, but I believe both of these problems can be > solved by looking to traditional filesystems. Each filesystem object > has an owner--that makes it possible and easy to do accounting. Right > now objects are somewhat anonymous, which I don't see as an advantage > in any of Tahoe's use cases. If you need to distribute data to people > anonymously I think a model like Freenet's would provide better > protection. I disagree that objects being anonymous isn't an advantage; it facilitates deduplication and sharing. The approach we're taking to accounting is that leases are owned, not filesystem objects. > The necessity for garbage collection IMHO comes from the fact that > it's possible to lose or forget the root of a directory structure. Why > not use the dropbox model, where it's just like another drive with a > single root per user? That model requires a central authority to allow recovering the root, which we don't want (or at least don't want to require). -- Daira Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
