Oskar Sandberg <md98-osa at nada.kth.se> wrote: > I didn't think the Oceanstore paper was very interesting. Like you say, > the naming scheme is like ours (and that is pretty much the obvious way > of doing it). The interesting part is the paper they reference for their > global routing system (which I first thought was just a hypercube mesh, > but which is actually a lot more complicated): > > http://www.cs.utexas.edu/users/plaxton/ps/1999/tocs.ps
yeah, what you told me at the conference didn't sound that great, but it is more sophisticated -- from what I gather, the network is covered by a large number of overlapping trees. Each tree, which corresponds to some object GUID, covers all the nodes, but with different orderings. To find an object, you traverse the appropriate tree upwards to its root, and then downwards to the location of the object. Along the way, however, if you encounter a downwards reference to the location of the object, go straight there. Thus the root can be corrupt, but it doesn't matter -- the important thing is that requests will converge towards the root and hopefully intersect a storage reference. Actually, it doesn't seem that dissimilar to Freenet, if you substitute "epicenter" for "root". I need to go actually read the Plaxton paper, though, since they didn't lay out that many details. They also had a reference to some type of searching in encrypted data, without revealing the search string? Presumably I guess you present some encrypted string, and the algorithm tells you whether the string is present in the data without decrypting either? That could be useful. theo _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://www.uprizer.com/mailman/listinfo/devl
