On Friday, 2010-03-12, at 15:20 , Jeremy Fitzhardinge wrote: > > Not sure how they'd find out about each other; perhaps the > introducer could do it, but it might be interesting to build a DLM- > like thing on top of a general chordish DHT.
That might be related to #68 (implement distributed introduction, remove Introducer as a single point of failure) and #295 (distributed control of access to nodes). > Adding a DHT to Tahoe would be a worthy GSOC project in itself; has > it been mentioned? Well there is #869 (Allow Tahoe filesystem to be run over a different key-value-store / DHT implementation), but I guess that's not what you mean. What do you mean? In some sense the immutable files (key = cap, value = file contents), and the mutable files (key = cap, value = file contents), and the directories (key = path-and-filename, value = file contents) are already "distributed hash tables". Regards, Zooko http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/68# http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/295# distributed control of access to nodes http://tahoe-lafs.org/trac/tahoe-lafs/ticket/869# Allow Tahoe filesystem to be run over a different key-value-store / DHT implementation _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
