On Wednesday 28 November 2007 21:08, David Sowder wrote: > Florent Daigni?re wrote: > > * Volodya <Volodya at WhenGendarmeSleeps.org> [2007-11-28 08:27:46]: > > > > > >> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > >> Hash: SHA1 > >> > >> Matthew Toseland wrote: > >> > >>> On Sunday 25 November 2007 15:50, David Sowder (Zothar) wrote: > >>> > >>>> I was just implementing https://bugs.freenetproject.org/view.php?id=1816 > >>>> > >>> Not everything that is a bug is necessarily a good idea. > >>> > >> If your plan is to let people use OpenNet, and then switch to FriendNet, then it would only make sense to allow > >> them to start bringing the total number of OpenNet connections down as they find more and more friends to join. > >> > >> - Volodya > >> > >> P.S. Or am i missing something here. > >> > > > > You are missing something; that's already implemented! The number of > > opennet peers is already capped, if you add darknet connections, the > > number of opennet peers will be reduced. > > > The number can only be configured to be at or below the maximum that was > hardcoded before. Perhaps someone wants to reduce the maximum used by > the node for bandwidth availability reasons. Darknet peer counts are > totally user configurable and opennet can be completely disabled. I > think we should prefer the opennet peer count be user configurable to > match the darknet peer count. AFAIK, most people won't be reducing the > opennet peer count without some reason to do so as most users would > prefer to increase it above 20, thinking that will improve things for > them and the current code won't let them do that.
The current code is fine IMHO. Like you said it's only useful on really low bandwidth systems. -------------- 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/20071128/6f1fc0b5/attachment.pgp>
