On Sunday 14 February 2010 01:00:16 xor wrote: > > I wonder why you do not want the interleaved scheme for all multi-segment > files? Why the arbitrary choice of 80 MiB files? > > It would suck if then people started to artificially bloat 50MiB files up > to 80MiB to improve their success rates...
Oh I guess the answer was in your original message: > For files of 20 segments (80 MiB) or more, we move to the > double-layered interleaved scheme. I'm working on the interleaving > code still (it isn't optimal for all numbers of data blocks yet). The > simple segmenting scheme is better for smaller files, and the > interleaved scheme for large ones. At 18 segments, the segmentation > does better. By 20 segments, the interleaved code is slightly better. > By 25 segments, the difference is approaching a 1.5x reduction in > failure rates. (Details depend on block success rate. I'll post them > on the bug report shortly.) ... Another question: Will you implement code to dynamically decide based on filesize how much amount of interleaving is needed? So that we do not have to modify anything even if people start inserting 1 TiB files? - It doesn't seem wise to have any assumptions on maximal file size as it changes over the years. -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100214/120f4f43/attachment.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 197 bytes Desc: This is a digitally signed message part. URL: <https://emu.freenetproject.org/pipermail/devl/attachments/20100214/120f4f43/attachment.pgp>
