On Sunday 19 October 2003 12:42 pm, Frank v Waveren wrote: > On Sat, Oct 18, 2003 at 02:43:28PM -0400, Ken Corson wrote: > > 20,000 . Of course, trying to estimate the size of Freenet is next > > to impossible, but I'll take a stab :) Any other gamblers out there ? > > A few months ago I collected noderefs from my own and several other > peoples nodes and counted the number of unique, reachable ones. Judging > from the rate of growth of the number of reachable nodes, I strongly > doubt there being more than 2000 nodes, and probably less than half > that number (I think I ended up with having 400 reachable nodes or > something like that, check the list archives).
I don't know about your methods, however your conclusion makes no sense at all. Try setting your max connections to 2000 or so. If what you are saying is correct you should not be able to fill it. Second this would mean the because the default max connections is 512, and AFAIK most nodes connection lists are full, then most nodes are connected to a sizeable portion of the network. If this were true, queries should not take more than a few hops to find the data on the network if it is there at all. I often find data that I can get at HTL=25 but not at 15. Also consider this: how much data is available and retrievable on Freenet? All that data must be on a computer somewhere. Given all the sights that have ISOs, movies, Image etc. archives that are very large, and the very small default datastore size, I can't see how that would work out unless very large numbers of people were upping it substantially. Finally the number of downloads for any given VERSION of freenet is higher than this. Even though not all those people are running permanent nodes there are surely at least that many users. Back in the day, when some network simulations were done, the code at the time seemed to scale ether logarithmicly or x^.27 (Ether model fit the data.) So, sometime during 5xx I did my own test by downloading lots of files and recording the average HTL where I found them. It was just under 15 at the time. So if you ether assume that it scales with respect to X^.27 or logarithmically, and even then is no more efficient than a binary search tree (very broken) you are still talking 20,000-30,000 nodes easily, and that was back then. So no, I can't think of a ideal way to measure Freenet's size, but I'm pretty sure your's is wrong. _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
