On Friday 01 May 2009 22:43:50 Robert Hailey wrote: > > 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.
No, we cannot divide by actual keyspace, the keys must be hashed first, or the middle bloom filter will be far too big. -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 835 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20090502/5a402a9e/attachment.pgp>
