On Sat, Mar 29, 2003 at 08:26:23AM -0500, Greg Wooledge wrote: > Ian Clarke (ian at locut.us) wrote: > > (The other guy said:) > > > Disk space is cheap, I don't see much reason for nodes not to cache > > > everything they can get their hands on. > > > > Because then they won't specialise. > > I know that specialization is critical to Freenet's routing heuristics > right now. But data retention is also an issue to many of us. Data > has to be reinserted into Freenet far more often than some of us > would like. > > If it's at all possible, we'd greatly prefer to see a scheme that > allows routing to work *without* decimating the content.
FOR FUCK'S SAKE, ALL DATASTORES ARE FINITE. And just because data is cached does not necessarily mean it will be reachable, because if it is nowhere near the specialization it probably won't be. > > -- > Greg Wooledge | "Truth belongs to everybody." > greg at wooledge.org | - The Red Hot Chili Peppers > http://wooledge.org/~greg/ | -- Matthew Toseland toad at amphibian.dyndns.org/amphibian at users.sourceforge.net Full time freenet hacker. http://freenetproject.org/ Freenet Distribution Node (temporary) at ICTHUS. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 189 bytes Desc: not available URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20030329/c35b7a60/attachment.pgp>
