On Wed, Oct 10, 2001 at 12:19:46AM -0500, thelema wrote: > I'd like to clarify my position, which probably seems to be against > redundancy if you just read the above, but I really think that we should > try non-redundant splitfiles and if they really can't be requested > successfully, we should try adding a *little* bit of redundancy and see > how that improves things, and not to go overboard with the redundancy.
This is a well studied problem (percolation, erasure channels, channel coding, etc...). There is no reason to blindly hope this will just work out. Look at the mathematical results. At the same time, I agree that you should not "go overboard with the redundancy". Someone should look up an appropriate code to use here and apply it. This should not be done by the seat of one's pants. The great thing about Shannon's capacity result is that you don't need to go overboard with redundancy in order to get exponentially close to perfect transmissions. Here is some code that does a lot of various schemes. A code should be selected that protects against burst erasures (like a splitfile not showing up): (this page might not have a good one for that, I didn't read carefully) http://www.csl.sony.co.jp/person/morelos/ecc/codes.html The standard book on the subject is: F.J. MacWilliams and N.J.A. Sloane, The Theory of Error-Correcting Codes Oscar. -- boykin at pobox.com http://pobox.com/~boykin ICQ: 5118680 Key fingerprint = 159A FA02 DF12 E72F B68F 5B2D C368 3BCA 36D7 CF28 -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 232 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20011010/3508db3a/attachment.pgp>
