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
Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support
Or mailto:support-requ...@freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe

Reply via email to