On May 1, 2009, at 3:46 PM, Evan Daniel wrote: > Yes, that's a question worth considering. There are both performance > and security issues involved, I think. Note that the partition could > be a set of contiguous regions (allowing performance optimization > around which piece of the keyspace you send info about), but it could > just as easily be determined by a hash function instead. > > You still check the same number of filters overall -- one per peer. > The difference is that for some peers you may have a partial filter > set, and therefore sometimes check their filters, instead of deciding > you don't have the memory for that peer's filter and never checking > it.
Maybe if we partition it we can also get a free datastore histogram on the stats page. -- Robert Hailey -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090501/6b52c397/attachment.html>
