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

Reply via email to