On 11/13/06, toad <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: > What do we want the default heuristics to be for containers? > > Presently, we have: > Any file below 64kB is considered for inclusion in a container. > Only one container will be inserted per freesite. > It is allowed to grow up to 2MB, then files are rejected and inserted > separately. > > Obviously this sucks: > - An activelink will pull the whole 2MB container. This means indexes > can take a very long time to load! > - Unused sites are supposed to fall out of freenet; activelinks subvert > this, but maybe they should only fetch part of the site, especially > given the first point. > - Larger sites could benefit from more files being included in more > containers. And the current rules impose an arbitrary cutoff. > - Larger files may sometimes be profitably included in the archive. > > Proposed solution: > - Any freesite which fits entirely into a container of 256kB will be > inserted as a single container. > - For larger sites, if the activelink (indicated by a flag) plus the > HTML plus the CSS fits into a container of 512kB, it should be > inserted as a single container. The rest of the site may be inserted > as a single container (excluding very large files - how large?). > - For even larger sites, we try to divide it up mostly by subdirectory, > with a limit of 512kB per container. > > Obviously these heuristics can be overridden by clients, which can > specify which container each file goes into. It has also been suggested > that we offer a choice of heuristics to clients (by type, by directory > etc). > > Benefits: > - Small freesites retain the advantages of being a single container. And > benefit relative to the current situation because larger files can be > included as long as the overall site is within the limit. > - Large freesites benefit because they can still be containerised (this > can be a huge benefit). > - Indexes load faster, and the activelink only preloads the html for > most sites (so the images will fall off if they are not accessed). > > Ideas? Details? Objections?
I'd like the proposed size limits doubled but apart from that it sounds good. > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v1.4.5 (GNU/Linux) > > iD8DBQFFWH7vA9rUluQ9pFARAlZEAJ4vgeSTrEPMDKNvy9yPW2nfvDDv/QCeI2fY > tt8boSX7ozS6otR3ob1dpyY= > =fFUq > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > > _______________________________________________ > Devl mailing list > Devl at freenetproject.org > http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/devl > >
