On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 13:56:31 -0500, Dennis Nezic wrote: > On Sat, 12 Mar 2011 11:16:40 -0600, no-re...@uservoice.com wrote: > > I have a fibre line as well as 10 TB of sapce I can > > devote to freenet. Would be swell if I could devote 10TB rather > > than the max of 300GB > > I wonder if all of Freenet can fit in those 10TB :D. Or if the size of > Freenet can be mathematically estimated from a few random node > samples.
Handwaving, since nodes are supposed to specialize over a specific key range, and assuming keys are equally distributed across the entire key-space, perhaps your 3% datastore utilization is a result of a small freenet. Ie. a node can only store (specialized-key-range-percentage * sizeof-freenet) gigs of data. If that's the case, the only way to increase your datastore would be to broaden your key-storing-range, but I don't think that would help, since freenet routing currently requires key specialization. Further handwaving, I wonder if it would be such a bad idea to support supernodes, with broader key specializations. For example, would it be a bad thing for a node to store the entire freenet? _______________________________________________ Support mailing list Support@freenetproject.org http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
