On Mon, 08 Oct 2001, Ian Clarke wrote: > It seems that people attempting large insertions into the not-so-big 0.4 > network are causing problems. Please refrain from attempting large > insertions until the network is larger and the load is better > distributed. Also, if you must attempt an insertion, please do so on a > mature node, rather than a new node whose datastore is full of the > seedNodes nodes - which are getting slashdotted. > my seed node is quite busy. I have plenty of bandwidth, but not so much in the way of CPU or datastore size.
> I would rather we didn't have to implement code to specifically deal > with this irritation (such as placing limits on the incoming traffic > permitted from any one node in a given period), as it will only be > relevent in these early stages. > very agreed. > Inserting large files is pointless anyway until we get redundant > splitfiles (see GJ's freesite for why). > Weren't you one of the people insisting that we wouldn't need redundancy for splitfiles? Why does having something published in freenet change your mind about this topic? > This is also good motivation for us to implement the seed.ref extraction > code in FCP that I mentioned recently to reduce the reliance on a small > number of seed nodes (and address Oskar's security concerns). > > Ian. That's still going to be a centralized approach. As much as I like the idea as a stopgap measure, I'd prefer to have it only give one address per request or something like that to severly limit any usefulness in getting a list of all nodes in the network. Thelema -- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] If you love something, set it free. GPG 1536g/B9C5D1F7 fpr:075A A3F7 F70B 1397 345D A67E 70AA 820B A806 F95D
msg02836/pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
