> My problem with this philosophy is that it is misleading. If I have a
> node that needs to delete X bytes of data, it doesn't mean all of
> freenet is totally overloaded. It just means my own node is out of
> space. The question is, how does my node find another node that can
> spare those X bytes for my file? If my node contains the only copy of
> the data, it is still deleted needlessly.
This sounds like a Good Thing to me. There are some 20GB freenet nodes out
there playing marbles while their stores sit with only a few GB in use. Why
couldn't the node, when full, attempt to find another free node to dump the
information on? The file could be inserted on the bottom of the stack (0
requests) and would be one of the first to truly die if it was absolutely
not wanted.
At first glance, this _seems_ to increase the efficiency of the network,
allowing smaller nodes keep pace with the popular info while the 800lb
gorilla nodes rack up big stores and increase the longetivity of
not-quite-so-popular files.
Or maybe I'm smoking the curtains again.
--
W. Eric C. Ferguson
Owner, PressTech
Belt Press Design and Manufacture
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
