Kevin Atkinson: > > Crypto is cheap. It's not Fred's bottleneck by a long shot. > > > > The only legitimate slowdown is the latency of a PKI key agreement, > > which requires a few packets back and forth. That's like 200ms. > > You don't consider having to route data though other nodes all the time a > slowdown?
I was addressing only the cost of encryption, not freenet's design in general. > > He's actually planning to use probabilistic caching. I suspect that > > it won't nearly be aggressive enough. > > Could you elaborate? Yes. I was referring to my original critique: | > *) Data, by default, will go directly from one node to another instead | > of having to be routed through other nodes. | | That's stupid. It wouldn't scale, and it would most likely | completely fail because the network would be too static. And let's | not even consider how trivial it would be to remove a specific file. | > If a particular node notices a large number of query for a key | > that it does not have it may chose to store a copy in its own | > cache therefore providing similar performance benefits that | > freenet's routing provides. | | You should've said that before! You'll have fun finding the right | value of "large." Too high and my previous comments apply. This would have the same effect as probabilistic caching - which decreases the likelihood of caching a file as the data moves away from the datasource. _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
