Toad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:

> On Tue, Jul 13, 2004 at 02:00:16AM +0000, Wayne McDougall wrote:
> > fproxy will timeout and then I have to start again. And then it won't even
> > grab the parts it previously downloaded successfully  So over a period of
> > weeks my perception is that I eventually move all the requisite parts into
> > my local stored, and then fproxy will download it instantly 
> 
> What do you mean by TIMEOUT? Do we STILL get that bug? Or does it just
> fail?

I apologise for being sloppy in my use of terminology. 

fproxy seems to perform as I imagine it is designed to. That is it will fail
when it cannot retrieve sufficient blocks to make up a file.

What makes it possible to retrieve a file with FUQUID when it become
impossible with fproxy is 
a) once a block is retrieved with FUQUID it is permanently retained. If I
restart a fproxy retrieval it has to start again. And I have seen, after
restarting immediatly after a failure, failing to retrieve multiple blocks
I had previously retrieved. In fact sequential attempts to retrieve would
result in lower percentages of the file retrieved. And sometimes the 
intersection of common blocks would be quite low. Most disheartening.
b) As I have commented previously I often see a request not found now will be
found some x minutes later. So FUQUID, by continual retries over many hours can
eventually see all the blocks within retrievable range. Further I configure
FUQUID to try all blocks, even after it has passed the point of being unable to
build the whole file because I believe it will help bring those blocks into
range on the next past.

So as I said I have no expectation of changes in fproxy. I don't expect to
have fproxy try again and again hour after hour. And I don't expect it to
stroe away the blocks it has retrieved to date.

> > So be encouraged. You're not just creating an anonymous slow file-sharer.
> > You know and I know that Freenet is being used for good purposes now
> > and I can see lots of potential for the future. 
> 
> Is it? Very few.

Maybe few in number but great in worthiness. I think.

The problem with a privacy project is that many people will not choose to
disclose how they are using it for privacy. :-)

And we're still only on version 0.5. So be encouraged. Hmmm, better to go
cut you a cheque I guess....

I *am* concerned when you express great surprise that Freenet will work at all
on a 768/256 connection. (That was my take on it). I get the impression
that you expect Freenet to require an academic university level of bandwidth
to function appropriately. Maybe that's the state the project is at now,
or heading to. But IMO it needs to be viable at a consumer level of 
bandwidth.

I'd love to see what Freenet is like with decent bandwidth. But since I have
no basis of comparison, I'm not disappointed with my 128/128kbits connection.


_______________________________________________
Support mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Reply via email to