thelema wrote:
> I'm just suprised that everyone now seems to agree that we need
> redundancy when before everyone seemed to be saying "hell no, keep that
> redundancy away", and I had to compromise with a system that allowed
> both redundant and non-redundant usage.
Not everyone agrees on the splitting plans with redunancy yet. I don't,
for example, but gave up resistance as I seem to be a tiny minority. I
am against too eagerly splitting of files in the first place (There were
discussions where a 64kb/128kb split size was proposed, which I consider
ridiculous).
a) splitting increases the likelihood of a retrieval failure (more
potential possibilities of one or more missing piece(s))
p_tot = p_retr^splitparts
(file=1,01 MB, splitsize=256kb, splitparts=5, without redundancy)
p_retr=99% -> p_tot = 95%
p_retr=90% -> p_tot = 59%
b) splitting might require redundancy in the split files to be able to
compensate a) -> more data in Freenet -> more data drops out ->
decreased reliability and storage capacity
c) splitfiles lead to more overhead as the last part has to be filled
with mumbo-jumbo to reach the std size -> more data in Freenet... see b)
I see there a vicious circle coming up, which I don't really like.
Mind, I am not against splitting per se, it might be appropriate for
*big* files, but why should my 386kb .gif be splitted in two parts?
Sebastian
_______________________________________________
Devl mailing list
Devl at freenetproject.org
http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
