On Sun, 3 May 2009 01:46:37 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
> On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
> wrote:
> > On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> >> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
> >
> > Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be
> >
On Sun, 3 May 2009 01:46:37 -0400, Juiceman wrote:
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetw...@web.de wrote:
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough
On Sat, Apr 25, 2009 at 2:23 PM, Matthew Toseland
t...@amphibian.dyndns.org wrote:
On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetw...@web.de wrote:
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
I dispute the latter.
2) why add
On Friday 24 April 2009 17:46:09 freenetwork at web.de wrote:
> 1) CHK-keys are already long enough
Long enough to be a PITA if they are longer? Or long enough to be functional?
I dispute the latter.
> 2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
> contradicts the
On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> > content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2
weeks
> > ago and it still
On Thursday 23 April 2009 17:25:11 Dennis Nezic wrote:
> On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > GORY DETAILS:
> >
> > Currently we use:
> > CHK@,,
> >
> > (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
>
> Isn't the first part supposed to be the
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:23:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> ... IF the 3 nodes which stored it to their datastores are online
> when you fetch and there aren't any problems contacting them (e.g. on
> darknet they might have swapped).
I'm still a little confused about what a routing key is. You
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:15:43 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
> > 1. It seems that when keys are posted on FMS (not so much frost),
> > they often get chopped off at 80 characters, leaving the user to
> > remove the newlines by hand. If
On Thursday 23 April 2009 17:25:11 Dennis Nezic wrote:
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
GORY DETAILS:
Currently we use:
CHK@routing key,crypto key,extra
(Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
Isn't the first part supposed
On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: I added it 2
weeks
ago and it still hasn't
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:15:43 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
On Thursday 23 April 2009 21:23:24 Jack T Mudge III wrote:
1. It seems that when keys are posted on FMS (not so much frost),
they often get chopped off at 80 characters, leaving the user to
remove the newlines by hand. If the keys
On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 19:23:22 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
... IF the 3 nodes which stored it to their datastores are online
when you fetch and there aren't any problems contacting them (e.g. on
darknet they might have swapped).
I'm still a little confused about what a routing key is. You
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
contradicts the concept (caching of keys around the key location; unused
content gets dropped)
if a) unwanted content is supposed to be dropped from the network to
make space for fresh stuff
1) CHK-keys are already long enough
2) why add something that tries to fix something broken (routing?) or
contradicts the concept (caching of keys around the key location; unused
content gets dropped)
if a) unwanted content is supposed to be dropped from the network to
make space for fresh stuff
Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content
persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks ago and
it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash
Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as
On Thursday 23 April 2009 06:16:40 am Matthew Toseland wrote:
> Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our
> content persistence problems boil down to this one bug: "I added it 2 weeks
> ago and it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1)". A new key type, DHKs
> (Duplicated Hash
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> GORY DETAILS:
>
> Currently we use:
> CHK@,,
>
> (Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
Isn't the first part supposed to be the data hash, and not a routing
key. And what is a routing key anyways? :P
Anecdotal evidence suggests that right now at least one third of our content
persistence problems boil down to this one bug: I added it 2 weeks ago and
it still hasn't got past 0% (0/1). A new key type, DHKs (Duplicated Hash
Keys), would solve the problem, but the new keys would be twice as
On Thu, 23 Apr 2009 14:16:40 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
GORY DETAILS:
Currently we use:
CHK@routing key,crypto key,extra
(Filenames afterwards are manifests, and therefore impact on the CHK)
Isn't the first part supposed to be the data hash, and not a routing
key. And what is a
19 matches
Mail list logo
