On Thu, May 03, 2007 at 05:43:46PM +0100, Bob Ham wrote: > On Thu, 2007-05-03 at 17:02 +0100, Michael Rogers wrote: > > Bob Ham wrote: > > > ... So the cache tends to contain data that's popular at the > > moment, and the store tends to contain data that's close to your node's > > location. > > What is a node's "location"? > > > > > Also, I understand that the configured store size limit is split exactly > > > 50:50 between the two. This is a problem. Only a very small percentage > > > of the Store is in use, but the Cache is nearing full. > > > > The store takes a lot longer to fill up, but once it's full it should > > provide better long-term storage (less redundancy between nodes). > > Sure. The issue is the loss of potential storage space in the time it > takes to fill up. What I propose is two things: firstly, the 50:50 > split seems pretty arbitrary; it should be configurable. > > Secondly, the node should fill up each store regardless of the > configured split point until it reaches the maximum overall store size. > At that time, it should reduce the size of whichever store is over its > allocation as and when the other store needs it.
It's not easy to do online shrinking without ending up losing the most valuable rather than the least valuable data. -------------- 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/20070503/d91341e0/attachment.pgp>
