On Sat, Dec 24, 2005 at 10:40:20AM +0200, Jusa Saari wrote:
> On Sat, 24 Dec 2005 00:17:30 +0100,
> freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> 
> >>Please explain why this theory is wrong ?
> > 
> > So essentially you're asking if FProxy could spider whole sites
> > recursively (or only for one or X levels of depth) in the background every
> > time the user hits a site... ?
> 
> No, I want FProxy to retrieve all the images pointed to by the "img" tags
> in the page. There is no recursion there, since no HTML files are loaded
> in this matter.
> 
> I just want image galleries to be usefull without having to resort to
> FUQID. As is, they aren't.

Even with your browser using 24-36 connections? In 0.5, fproxy will
allow between 24 and 36 parallel fproxy connections, and we recommend
that browsers are set up to use many connections.

I can see the argument for prefetching images... It's probably not
something I will implement before 0.7 though...
> 
> > If yes, the impact on the network would be interesting to see when
> > fetching TFE or any other index site... If the network's well structured
> > it won't break upon the millions of requests... otherwise... :)
> 
> Of course it will break in your scenario. It will be impossible to
> distinguish between often-retrieved and never-retrieved content, so the
> caching facilities won't work properly, and the network will grind to a
> screeching halt as it gets hopelessly overloaded, making it impossible to
> retrieve anything.

:)

Don't you think everyone will have a 50GB download queue anyway for Big
Files? In which case prefetching fproxy content might actually be the
best thing to do?
-- 
Matthew J Toseland - toad at amphibian.dyndns.org
Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/
ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: 
<https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/tech/attachments/20060104/a1c22be5/attachment.pgp>

Reply via email to