Matthew Toseland wrote: > Maybe. What would the benefit be? Isn't it a good thing to have a fairly > homogenous topology, rather than automatically creating ubernodes? > It would enable a node to be connected to both nets at the same time effectively (about 30 connections each). These kinds of "bridge" nodes would be useful for transferring data between the networks. The changes in 1066 reduced the transfer rates of my current nodecluster from about 100 kB/node (long run) to only about 60 kB/node and disconnected them completely from opennet - i.e. my nodes offer currently no entry point to the network through opennet.
Not aiming at supernodes, but seems that a reasonable amount of connections would be around 100 in total for these nodes, none of the nodes were loaded more than 20% even with 1065. Perhaps the optimal solution would be identifying in some way that the bottleneck for the node is its number of connections, and in these cases increase the maximum number of connections. And maybe the ubernodes are not so bad for the network if there are enough of those, say around 10% of the total node population. Alternatively, if you want to keep the number of connections down no matter what, a code that would allow the nodes on fast network connections and with loads of power to network explicitly among themselves - e.g. an option to categorize nodes based on their bandwith limits and assign a number of slots to nodes in a very fast category could help the problem of underloading fast systems. I am also inclined to believe that having a bunch of variable connections in addition to more stable ones makes breaking anonymity more difficult. Also a higher number of connections would make efforts to take control of the IP's connected more difficult. Cracking 10 freenet node running machines is easier than cracking 100, and cracking 50 stable and 50 constantly changing is already rather impossible. -- ---------------------------------------------------- Malkus Lindroos > On Wednesday 24 October 2007 06:00, [Anon] Anon User wrote: > >> In Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> wrote: >> >>> Freenet 0.7 build 1066 is available. It will be mandatory on the 30th of >>> October. It includes some fairly large changes including: >>> - Merge of JFK, a Summer of Code project to implement a new, better link >>> encryption setup protocol (we were using a form of STS). >>> - The opennet peers limit takes into account connected darknet peers, so as >>> you get more Friends you will lose Strangers. >>> >> Could "opennet peers limit" be made configurable in freenet.ini/conf? >> >> Thanks >> >> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Support mailing list >> Support at freenetproject.org >> http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.support >> Unsubscribe at http://emu.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/support >> Or mailto:support-request at freenetproject.org?subject=unsubscribe
