On Fri, Jul 25, 2003 at 11:13:00PM +0100, Gordan wrote: > On Friday 25 July 2003 19:24, Toad wrote: > > > > This has all been solved before. If the solution is pre-caching, then > > > there are better ways to achieve the solution than making each download 1 > > > MB. That is just ridiculous. Instead, it would probably be better to > > > implement a limited depth web crawler in fproxy that would download > > > things up to 1 or 2 hops away from a page being visited, with a limit of > > > how many downloads to do simultaneously. > > > > > > That way, it can still be handled in the node, it will help site > > > propagation, and it will speed things up. And best of all, it will not > > > require the horrible, horrible cludge of using archives to transfer > > > entire sites. > > > > It would be a lot more code than the containers code is. If you want to > > implement it, go right ahead; we will pick holes in your code but > > eventually it would probably be accepted. > > I may just do that. I've been planning to get stuck into Freenet code for > quite a while now. > > > > Purely client side solutions already exist. I am sure that I saw a piece > > > of software years ago that interfaces with IE and tries to pre-cache > > > things for you, so that when you click on a link, the chances are that > > > the next page is already cached. > > > > Precaching is certainly possible; it is made easier by the fact that we > > can determine the size of the file from the key, before downloading it. > > However it will use a lot of download threads, and we certainly do not > > want all nodes to be using all their spare capacity when idle to > > prefetch data, because it would produce a vast network load. So > > firstly, we need to deal with pooling requests, so that it does less > > prefetch when a splitfile download is in progress, for example; > > secondly, it would need to run nonblocking, but that's relatively easy; > > thirdly, we would need to set some parameters to limit the maximum load > > caused by it even when the node is idle. I am sure you can think of > > other issues to solve. And I don't regard it as a priority, I am more > > concerned with fixing routing :) > > Fair enough. Speaking of routing, I used to have a very consistently "green" > routing table a few months back. Nowdays, it is doing well if there are even > 2-3 green entries in it, they are all red. Has there been a recent > development that could explain that?
Slashdot, perhaps? > > Gordan -- Matthew J Toseland - [EMAIL PROTECTED] Freenet Project Official Codemonkey - http://freenetproject.org/ ICTHUS - Nothing is impossible. Our Boss says so.
pgp00000.pgp
Description: PGP signature
