On February 27, 2003 11:39 pm, Ian Clarke wrote: > I am somewhat concerned that the datastore data size limit of 1/200th of > the total datastore size is less than an optimal solution. > > Current behavior is that if someone decides to have a datastore of less > than 200MB (or is it 256?), then even 1MB chunks of data won't be cached > on that node, although the user will still be able to download such > data. > > Let's think about that, any user who initially decides to give Freenet > less than 200MB will automatically start leaching larger chunks of data > without storing them locally. Someone who opted (as I do) to devote > 50MB to Freenet will not cache anything larger than about 500k, even > though I will be able to get such data from other users in the network > who do. > > I see this as a problem, it doesn't really disadvantage those who opt > for smaller datastores yet it ensures that the network as a whole is > significantly disadvantaged by such users. > > This can't be the only way to do this. I dislike chosing arbitrary > limits where it can be avoided, but if we must have one, I think setting > a fixed maximum size on data which a datastore will cache (say 1MB) > would be better than setting a variable limit based on the somewhat > arbitrary 1/200th ratio that we currently employ.
I would rather see a larger minimum datastore size. Ed Tomlinson _______________________________________________ devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org:8080/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
