> Timm Murray ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) wrote: > > > > Sorry Mark, but the "one computer, one node" rule is something I > > picked up from Oskar (I think), and I decided I agreed with him (and > > not just because he's Oskar). Freenet works better with lots of > > smaller nodes to spread the data out then to have a few really big > > nodes. I think the optimal solution is to have each computer on the > > LAN to have a 50-200 MB store (non-transient) with the main node > > having a 1-2 GB store. > > (Damn, dude! Hit Enter once in a while!)
No > > It seems quite likely that in the near future, Freenet is going to be > (more commonly) used as a transport mechanism for Very Large Files > (~650 MB). If the local node's data store is less than the size of the > file you're trying to retrieve, I doubt that the results are going to > be pleasant. This is not a problem with split files. Event before split files, the node would just save it to the hard drive, pass it on to the next node, then delete it. You may have problems if the file is larger then your total free hard drive space. Again, this is not a problem with 0.4/5 split files. > I can't see any reason why you'd want a data store less than 1 GB, > unless your hard drive is simply so small that you can't have a node > that big. (In which case you won't be downloading ISO images, so you > won't face these issues in the first place.) Large datastores tend to centralize the network. Datastores don't fill up as quickly and your node caches more data and less data falls out. On the surface, this seems like an advantage; indeed, for a node operator's short term gain, it is an advantage. However, over the long term it tends to hurt routing. Nodes won't be requesting as much data from other nodes, and thus won't discover new nodes through requests. _______________________________________________ Chat mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/chat
