On Sat, Mar 12, 2011 at 7:09 PM, Dennis Nezic <denn...@dennisn.dyndns.org> wrote: > 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?
I think he is saying his node won't create a datastore larger than 300GB... _______________________________________________ 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
