>> maybe the default values for > > rtMaxNodes=50 > > rtMaxRefs=50 > > are too low, so >> your node's connectivity is bad? i increased them both to hold up to 500 >> entries and within an hour i got 174 noderefs! (okay, i did not have a >> permanent node, so they had just 1-25 keys assigned, but what the heck >> ;) > >Oh my gosh, you are trying to hold 500x500=250000 keys! >I am quite sure this would end up with a big use of store space, and unless >you really have a big one I believe it would eat up space from actual >content `:|
whoops, sorry, i was just wrong.. i raised them both to 250 only ^-^ but the node did not become very slow or memory hungry >> i wonder if there is any good reason why these values are limited to 50 >> entries and not to +INF ? >I am quite sure about the MaxNodes: if you have a perfect routing table >(network is fully connected: everyone knows everyone) then you will >probably get things with HTL=1 or something very close. On answer, you and >you alone (maybe one or two more) will have cached the content. Hence, >things will get much worse (if a couple of nodes go down you loose the >files). Also, bigger tables mean more CPU consumption. >Also, results get cached in paths. If you get lots of alien keys (those >that are not "near" your node's assigned key) you will loose important data >(the one you should be having), causing great havock. Data key localisation >is one of the things that make freenet routing algo work. >Maybe there are better reasons, or mine has a flaw in it. Anyway, that's >what I think :) well i agree with your arguments. the need to request a key with more than one hop (you cannot reach the correct node which has the data in one turn (because it's noderef is there and you can know it has the key if more entries are allowed, but you may not use it)) helps spreading keys over different nodes. but why are only 50 noderefs stored when there would be many more available? maybe only the first n=50 nodes could be *used* but the others are right at hand if a noderefs drops out due to CP or backoff (//FIXME :p). what about allowing many node references in the routing table, allowing the pull of the key from the most "key-near" node so the user gets his stuff *as fast as possible*, but reseeding the data fred just fetched to a node which is somewhere "key-near" the node we got the key from, so we would duplicate the data *after we fetched it*? ____________________________________________________________ The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to which it is addressed and may contain confidential and/or privileged material. Any review, retransmission, dissemination or other use of, or taking of any action in reliance upon, this information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is prohibited. If you received this in error, please contact the sender and delete the material from any computer. _______________________________________________ support mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://hawk.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
