On 16 Apr 2001 22:38:50 -0400, W. Eric C. Ferguson wrote:
> > 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
If I remember correctly people had objections to nodes needing to know
this and that about eachother. I don't know why it's such a problem to
ask your ref partners if they could spare a meg.
owen
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
