On Mon, 18 Feb 2002, Jeff Darcy wrote: > > Well for one thing it will cause no-so-popular data to fall of the network > > faster which is one of the key things I would like to avoid. I want > > DistribNet to serve as a solution for storing long term data not data > > which just happens to be popular at the moment. > > Good for you. Anyone here who recognizes my name at all probably knows it > from my criticisms of Freenet on this very point (check my website).
OK. So I guess I am guilty of being a newbie. Now where is your website? You can find mine in my signature. > However, just because you want to ensure at least one "permanent" copy of > the data does not preclude caching it promiscuously elsewhere. They're > really orthogonal issues. Yeah. But the more space used for caching means the less space available for keeping old data around. > > > What you should be saying is "the more nodes that *have* the data...". > Why > > > limit it to nodes that initiated new requests for the data? > > > > Because it gives more freedom in how data is requested. The main problem > > with always having to route data through other nodes is that it is > > incompatible with finding no-so-popular data sitting only on a few distant > > nodes. I don't quite know how else to explain this. > > That's really more to do with the search algorithm than the caching. No > matter how you do caching, you'll need precise search to accomplish this > goal, and once you have precise search you can cache however you want. > Yeah, I know I just said the same thing twice in one sentence. ;-) So are you saying that if a search algorithm identifies a far away node which has the data it would be better to ask a closer node to retrieve it than to get the data directly so that the data has a chance to get cached? -- http://kevin.atkinson.dhs.org _______________________________________________ freenet-tech mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/tech
