It seems that there are two differing expectations about how the datastore can specialize. Perhaps a visual representation of keyspace can help what I'm saying -
1) . . . . . ..-=*###*==--... . . . .
2) . . -*#*- . . .. -+- . .. .. -++- . . .
In example 1, the keys cluster about a single point. It seems most people expect this behavior.
In example 2, there are multiple points of "clustering." The existence of a clustering point reinforces that cluster, but multiple "points" exist.
I don't know which of these is the proper interpretation, but I'm leaning towards #2.
And again, it is worth restating, that if the local datastore is only able to directly respond to some small percent of the total queries received, the datastore's specialization is far less significant than routing specialization. The estimators for the peers in the routing table are used to forward(route) those queries that cannot be answered directly with the contents of the datastore.
Let's think in 3 dimensions briefly: the astronomical universe represents the total keyspace. As expected, the universe is mostly empty. The keys (stars) are 'magnetic.' Case one has only one galaxy, but case two has many galaxies.
Does this help anyone ? Which is the proper analogy for Freenet's expectation of datastore specialization ?
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
