On Monday 05 November 2001 03:42 pm, you wrote: > On Monday 05 November 2001 08:15, toad wrote: > > On Mon, Nov 05, 2001 at 03:40:05AM -0500, Gianni Johansson wrote: > >... > > > > Could you please make sure this uses full blocks (i.e. PO2 sizes) for all > > the chunks (as many of them as possible anyway)? > > It already does this. Blocks are 256k, 512K or 1Mb depending on the file > size. The final block may be zero padded if nescessary.
Full blocks might not always be the best way to insert data. Let's say you have file B which is an updated version of A. B might have its data shifted slightly, so its blocks might not align, creating unnecessary redundency if inserted into freenet even with the same block size. Upon inserting B, what if FProxy could use the checksums on the segments of A, then calculate the checksums at all offsets in B, and create the splitfile index of B using the blocks on A that match B, and just insert blocks that fill in the changes and the missing data? This would increase reliability of the overlapping blocks, and reduce the total file size on freenet. The only problem with this is that it would make some blocks smaller than others, which would make FEC more complicated. Maybe an FEC algorithm that can work well with variable-size blocks can be used, and maybe it could have some abilities for use with overlapping blocks. Or for simplicity with FEC, the partial blocks could be padded and/or combined with other partial blocks and somehow be specially indexed in the splitfiles' indexes. > > The guy who inserted the 2 > > films used 2.9MB blocksize, so wasted a HUGE amount of space. Also, you > > are saying the only way to insert redundant splifiles ATM is through > > fproxy? > > For now yes. > > People shouldn't use the prototype cli clients on my Freesite anymore. > They are not compatible with the fproxy plugin implementation. > > --gj _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
