On Thu, 2 Oct 2003, Tracy R Reed wrote: > On Thu, Oct 02, 2003 at 05:23:53PM -0700, Todd Walton spake thusly: > > Well, something to consider is: Are we sure nodes really need to > > specialize, as things are? Maybe there's a lot more disk space out there > > than there is stuff to fill it? In that case, there'd be little need to > > dump old stuff, and specialization wouldn't be as apparent.
AGH! I fell into the trap. Specialization != Datastore Contents. Specialization is when a node is good at serving a limited area of keyspace, whether because it has the data in its store, or because it knows where to find it. Also, specialization and routing don't necessarily go hand in hand. Even in a network with no specialization, there would still be a need to discover and use good routes. > But freenet routes. At least, > it's supposed to. And it does that based on what your node specializes in. Only indirectly. Freenet routes based on how to get the desired data the fastest. If you figure out that some node can serve most of the requests you give it (in all areas of keyspace), and it can do it faster than any other node that your node knows about, then you'd have a situation where routing is working wonderfully without specialization being present. Even acknowledging that this ubernode scenario is unlikely, the fact remains that routing and specialization are not fundamentally linked, and it would be premature to say that *no* situation could exist in which their effects are separated. However, your original point remains: > Right now freenet is little better (and perhaps worse depending on what's > going on with the just-discovered bugs) than a broadcast search. When > nodes specialize we will see much faster finding of data and lower network > load due to data being found more efficiently. -todd _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
