On 5/11/07, Florent Daigni?re <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote: > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]: > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]: > > > > > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote: > > > > > On Thursday 10 May 2007 11:52, Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > > > > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-05-10 > > > > > > 11:31:22]: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > As long as it's an expert option, I don't see any reason why it > > > > > > > shouldn't > > > > > > > be accepted. > > > > > > > > > > > > Preventing users from their stupidity ? > > > > > > > > > > > > We don't want everyone to have a cache but no specialized data on > > > > > > the > > > > > > basis that "with a bigger cache downloads are 'resuming' ; I don't > > > > > > care > > > > > > about others nor the network so I only cache" > > > > > > > > > > Fair point. If they want to break their node that much they can > > > > > maintain a > > > > > fork. > > > > > > > > This is a real cognitive problem showing up right there. It isn't your > > > > responsibility to second-guess the user. There are valid reasons for > > > > the node to have this functionality. The only reason for it not to is > > > > to inhibit users. That's what Microsoft do. > > > > > > Indeed... and experience has shown that it works. > > > > What do you mean "it works"? What does it work to do? > > > > Shall I remind you that most of our users do use Microsoft products and > are happy with them ? > > I'm against the introduction of new useless (no need to debate the > meaning of useless this time; show me some stats/simulations if you want > to be heard) settings, especially when they can harm the network... So > far we don't have content reachability problems and if we did, I would > suggest to fix the datastore code or to prevent users from nuking it on > a regular basis. > > The 50%-50% limit is arbitrary, so are many "unknown" and "hidden" > settings in the node; unless you have strong evidence (with a theorical > basis) explaining why it's bad/wrong you will be directed to the bug > tracking system and the "wishlist" category. I will ask you to explain > the "This is a problem." in your first mail [1] as well (so that we > could at least agree on the fact that we don't have the same definition > of what a problem is either ;) ). > > Moreover some related work has to be done on the shrinking code, > mroggers has suggested that the LRU policy might not be the best > solution to choose which data will be pruned; he came with some > references and is likely to be heard... You didn't, did you ? Anyway, > consequently his suggestion is likely to be implemented before any other > "related" work is done in that area of the code. IMO we shouldn't give > users incentives to use a "maybe broken and harmful" schrinker, hence > I'm against letting him play with the ratio of the cache/store. >
No, I don't have data and/or references. As you said yourself "the 50%-50% limit is arbitrary". Why did you decide on 50%, where is your statical results from a simulation? What I do know is my gut tells me I probably have one the largest caches in Freenet. Any request that passes thru my node has a good chance of finding the data in my node. Hence, my outbound bandwidth is always pegged at 25KB/sec (which I don't have a problem with) I just have a feeling the "deep store of data" that I want my node to concentrate on is not being served because its answering "random requests." Is there a histogram of inbound and outbound transfers somewhere I can check? BTW, I recently "nuked" my datastore so I would stop seeing error messages about my store and corruption (and I knew it would fill back up quick enough with random requests). Maybe we should hide error messages from users so they think everything is "peachy"? -- I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the death, your right to say it. - Voltaire Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin
