On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 22:06 -0400, Sajith Sasidharan wrote: > It looks like at some point there was interest in allowing storage > nodes > behind NAT; not sure what, if anything, has happened since. > > https://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/445 > https://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-December/003331.html > > In that mailing list thread, IPv6 was proposed as a solution. I live > in the > metro area of a first world country, and my ISP does not offer IPv6 > out of the > box, twelve years later... looks like it remains unsolved? :^) > > Regards, > Sajith.
You cat get an IPv6 tunnel from Hurricane Electric at https://www.tunnelbroker.net/ Kind Regards. > On Sun, 2021-04-18 at 21:43 -0400, Sajith Sasidharan wrote: > > Hi Swami, > > > > You are right, your email did not make it to the list. I'm sorry > > about > > that. > > Our list is a little broken right now. We're working on fixing it. > > > > Thank you for not giving up on us though! One challenge we have is > > not > > knowing enough about real world users or usage of Tahoe-LAFS, so I > > am very > > glad that you persisted. > > > > The usage pattern you've proposed sounds like sounds like a > > variation of > > what > > is called a "friendnet" in Tahoe-LAFS parlance, where a group of > > friends > > share > > storage with each other. Tahoe-LAFS could be appropriate for you, > > although > > not quite in its current shape, and not right now, just as you > > thought. > > > > You have gathered some ideas from the linked Gridsync issue about > > difficulties > > of running Tahoe-LAFS storage nodes in people's home machines. I > > am still > > new > > to Tahoe-LAFS, so I am not sure I have better ideas than > > that. Hopefully > > more > > experienced people in the list will chime in. > > > > Regarding point 1, Tahoe-LAFS is not super simple to install or use > > at the > > moment. I suppose we should strive to improve that. Regarding > > point 2, I'm > > not quite sure what kind of challenges there are when running a > > storage > > server > > node behind a home router -- I have not partaken in a friendnet > > myself. About > > all your points, I'd love to heed to the community's wisdom. > > > > To answer your question about interest in the ideas, I do think > > they are > > interesting. It should be possible to create what you describe > > using Tahoe- > > LAFS as a building block. I am just unclear about the amount of > > effort. > > > > In any case, I suppose we should stay in touch. :) > > > > Regards, > > Sajith. > > > > > > On Sat, 2021-04-17 at 23:38 +0530, Swami Kevala wrote: > > > Hi Sajith, > > > > > > Not sure if my email to Tahoe lafs Dev list was getting > > > through... So > > > sending to you directly. Hope you don't mind. > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > Swami Kevala > > > > > > ---------- Forwarded message --------- > > > From: Swami Kevala <[email protected]> > > > Date: Sat, 17 Apr 2021, 13:09 > > > Subject: Easy way for community to volunteer storage > > > To: <[email protected]> > > > > > > > > > Hello, > > > > > > I am looking for a way to use Tahoe-LAFS to enable a large > > > community of > > > non- > > > technical people to volunteer a fraction of the hard drive space > > > on their > > > personal computers to collaboratively host an archive of digital > > > content > > > in > > > perpetuity. (Sort of a cross between BitTorrent and the SETI@Home > > > project > > > - > > > but for storage rather than processing) > > > > > > We have an archive with about 1 PB of content, and we have a > > > community of > > > over a million active supporters. We are looking at cost- > > > effective and > > > resilient ways of hosting our archives on several redundant > > > systems. > > > Sharding, encrypting and distributing it to our community seems > > > like one > > > robust way of doing this. > > > > > > Points to note: > > > > > > 1. Software installation and configuration should be super- > > > simple. One- > > > click > > > install, which asks the user how much space he can volunteer, and > > > which > > > local directory will be used > > > > > > 2. Most people will not have a static IP address, so the solution > > > should > > > work for the average personal computer setup (dynamic IP assigned > > > by ISP) > > > - > > > without needing any additional router configuration > > > > > > 3. It is not a problem if many people have their computers > > > switched off > > > frequently (e.g. during non-work hours). The primary purpose is > > > to provide > > > a > > > durable long term archive; speed of restoring content is a > > > secondary > > > factor. > > > > > > 4. The volunteers would not use the grid to share their own > > > content. The > > > system would be strictly one-way. Our central archives would be > > > pushed > > > onto > > > the distributed storage provided by the community. The motivation > > > for the > > > community to participate is that they understand the archive > > > holds content > > > which is of great value to humanity. > > > > > > 5. The amount of storage per node could vary between say 10GB on > > > a home > > > PC, > > > to say 1TB on a server type system > > > > > > For your reference, I initially posted this question on the > > > Gridsync > > > Github > > > page, and was directed to this mailing list by the developer > > > > > > https://github.com/gridsync/gridsync/issues/341 > > > > > > I understand that currently this may not possible as I have > > > described. > > > Would > > > like to know if there is any interest in the ideas being > > > proposed, and any > > > likelihood of this kind of arrangement being possible in the > > > future. > > > > > > Kind Regards > > > Swami Kevala > > > > > _______________________________________________ > tahoe-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
