On Tue, Jul 11, 2006 at 04:37:23PM +0200, Florent Daigni?re (NextGen$) wrote: > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2006-07-11 13:34:54]: > > > I think that the reason we don't *keep* nodes at present is not the > > difficulty of getting peers (although that may cause a lot of peers to > > not join the network in the first place), it's that after going through > > the rituals of adding a few nodes, the network has very little content, > > and the newbies uninstall Freenet. The reason it has little content is > > not primarily because it is small, it is primarily that inserts are very > > slow. Inserts are very slow for various reasons: > > 1. Load balancing. > > 2. Bugs. > > 3. Inserts don't resume on restart. > > 4. Large freesites have issues. (Containers are limited to 2MB). > > 5. Survivability. > > > > Nextgens is very keen on #3. He has convinced me, although it's only > > really an issue for largish files. There are a few minor things I need > > to do first on load balancing for example, but it's well up the priority > > list. #5 will be addressed by the new storage system, although we are > > reasonably good on #5 anyway. Fixing #1 properly requires completion of > > mrogers' load simulations. #2 is an ongoing issue. #4 is a big deal for > > freesites, but not for sharing of single files; but we all know that > > freesites are important. > > I'm not sure that people are willing to insert more than 2M of > compressed manifest ;)
I've heard people on #freenet talking about inserting big sites. > Yes, I do think that support of insert resuming will please more users. More than opennet??? > > > The other reason why people don't stay is that it's too much hassle to > > update your node when there has been a mandatory build and you managed > > to miss it. Their node doesn't offer them the option to update, and they > > don't know how to update manually, so they just let it go. The solution > > to this is update-over-mandatory support, or to not have mandatory > > builds, or to include support for downloading a new update from emu in > > the node. I believe we need mandatory builds to debug load balancing, > > if for no other reason. Downloading a new update from emu is possible, > > with sufficient warnings; of course it would put load on the mirrors, > > and of course emu can be spoofed or cracked. > > imho that's not an option: you're missing something : the node might not > be allowed to proceed http transferts... it wouldn't work for people > behind a proxy for instance ... and dealing with proxy probably means > dealing with authenticated proxies ... and so on. > > Update-over-mandatory is smarter in terms of design and probably simpler > ;) so update from emu using http is "not an option" :p I doubt that it's simpler, but it is better. > > NextGen$ -- 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/20060711/c4d360ca/attachment.pgp>
