[Tech] Cache and Store

[Juiceman]

On 5/11/07, Florent Daignière <nextgens at freenetproject.org> wrote:
> * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-11 08:19:49]:
>
> > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 22:47 +0200, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > * Bob Ham <rah at bash.sh> [2007-05-10 21:45:59]:
> > >
> > > > On Thu, 2007-05-10 at 12:53 +0100, Matthew Toseland wrote:
> > > > > On Thursday 10 May 2007 11:52, Florent Daignière wrote:
> > > > > > * Matthew Toseland <toad at amphibian.dyndns.org> [2007-05-10 11:31:22]:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > As long as it's an expert option, I don't see any reason why it shouldn't
> > > > > > > be accepted.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Preventing users from their stupidity ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We don't want everyone to have a cache but no specialized data on the
> > > > > > basis that "with a bigger cache downloads are 'resuming' ; I don't care
> > > > > > about others nor the network so I only cache"
> > > > >
> > > > > Fair point. If they want to break their node that much they can maintain a
> > > > > fork.
> > > >
> > > > This is a real cognitive problem showing up right there.  It isn't your
> > > > responsibility to second-guess the user.  There are valid reasons for
> > > > the node to have this functionality.  The only reason for it not to is
> > > > to inhibit users.  That's what Microsoft do.
> > >
> > > Indeed... and experience has shown that it works.
> >
> > What do you mean "it works"?  What does it work to do?
> >
>
> Shall I remind you that most of our users do use Microsoft products and
> are happy with them ?
>
> I'm  against the  introduction of  new useless  (no need  to debate  the
> meaning of useless this time; show me some stats/simulations if you want
> to be heard)  settings, especially when they can harm  the network... So
> far we don't  have content reachability problems and if  we did, I would
> suggest to fix the datastore code or  to prevent users from nuking it on
> a regular basis.
>
> The  50%-50% limit  is arbitrary,  so  are many  "unknown" and  "hidden"
> settings in the node; unless you  have strong evidence (with a theorical
> basis) explaining  why it's bad/wrong  you will  be directed to  the bug
> tracking system and  the "wishlist" category. I will ask  you to explain
> the "This  is a problem."  in your  first mail [1]  as well (so  that we
> could at least agree on the fact  that we don't have the same definition
> of what a problem is either ;) ).
>
> Moreover  some related  work  has  to be  done  on  the shrinking  code,
> mroggers  has suggested  that  the  LRU policy  might  not  be the  best
> solution  to  choose which  data  will  be  pruned;  he came  with  some
> references and  is likely to be  heard... You didn't, did  you ? Anyway,
> consequently his suggestion is likely to be implemented before any other
> "related" work is done  in that area of the code.  IMO we shouldn't give
> users incentives to use a "maybe broken and harmful" schrinker, hence
> I'm against letting him play with the ratio of the cache/store.
>

No, I don't have data and/or references.  As you said yourself "the
50%-50% limit  is arbitrary".  Why did you decide on 50%, where is
your statical results from a simulation?  What I do know is my gut
tells me I probably have one the largest caches in Freenet.  Any
request that passes thru my node has a good chance of finding the data
in my node.  Hence, my outbound bandwidth is always pegged at 25KB/sec
(which I don't have a problem with) I just have a feeling the "deep
store of data" that I want my node to concentrate on is not being
served because its answering "random requests."  Is there a histogram
of inbound and outbound transfers somewhere I can check?

BTW, I recently "nuked" my datastore so I would stop seeing error
messages about my store and corruption (and I knew it would fill back
up quick enough with random requests).  Maybe we should hide error
messages from users so they think everything is "peachy"?

-- 
I may disagree with what you have to say, but I shall defend, to the
death, your right to say it. - Voltaire
Those who would give up Liberty, to purchase temporary Safety, deserve
neither Liberty nor Safety. - Ben Franklin