On Wednesday 13 May 2009 04:53:11 Evan Daniel wrote: > On Tue, May 12, 2009 at 4:26 PM, Ximin Luo <[email protected]> wrote: > > > (one way of storing it which would allow token-deflate would be having each > > indexnode as a CHK, then you'd only have to INS an updated node and all its > > parents up to the root, but i chose not to do this as CHKs have a higher limit > > for being turned into a splitfile. was this the right decision?) > > My impression is that most of the time to download a key is the > routing time to find it, not the time to transfer the data once found. > So a 32KiB CHK is only somewhat slower to download than a 1KiB SSK. > (Though I haven't seen hard numbers on this in ages, so I could be > completely wrong.) > > My instinct is that the high latency for a single-key lookup that is > the norm for Freenet means that if using CHKs instead results in an > appreciably shallower tree, that will yield a performance improvement.
Agreed. > The other effect to consider is how likely the additional data > fetched is to be useful to some later request. Answering that is > probably trickier, since it requires reasonable assumptions about > index size and usage. > > It would be nice if there was a way to get some splitfile-type > redundancy in these indexes; otherwise uncommonly searched terms won't > be retrievable. However, there's obviously a tradeoff with common > search term latency. Yeah. Generally fetching a single block with no redundancy is something to be avoided IMHO. You might want to use the directory insertion code (maybe saces' DefaultManifestPutter), but you may want to tweak the settings a bit. > > Evan Daniel
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Devl mailing list [email protected] http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl
