I dunno about self hosting on your machine but I’m not opposed to an idea where if you have files to share on a server, you have to provide storage for parts of other files up to a certain percent of the space you use. Or, something like… you have 20gb, you’re only using 5gb, so 15gb are free for the network. If you start using more locally, it opens up space for you to use by clearing shared files. If that makes sense?
When you share say an 5MB mp3, with the default x10 oversharing, you’ll negotiate with 10 other nodes to “you share mine, I’ll share yours”.
The system will (configurable) accept files up to twice that size. It will statistically even out to roughly the same size of your file x the oversharing.
And don’t forget, we’re not talking about TB of data, but Megabytes. You can “lose” some space quite many times before even hitting a Gigabyte. A GB is not much today, or so I think.
When you decide to update your mp3 (say you have a “song of the day”) then all nodes will get an update request. If they fail to update, they’ll just be dropped and a new node searched for. You can also just clean out the shares if you want to, they’ll repopulate automatically.
With oversharing, you just need one of them all to be ‘up’ to make the system work, you can share your new song, shut your PC down and it still works.
I guess that does encourage people to consider file size. Which is something most people don’t these days. I remember when 100k was considered a heavy load for users.
Yes, and even if your whole site is a full GB, with images, songs and whatnot, you’d only need to have 10GB free for sharing (which is tweakable too!), something many people have, or so I wager.
I dunno about self hosting on your machine but I’m not opposed to an idea where if you have files to share on a server, you have to provide storage for parts of other files up to a certain percent of the space you use. Or, something like… you have 20gb, you’re only using 5gb, so 15gb are free for the network. If you start using more locally, it opens up space for you to use by clearing shared files. If that makes sense?
Tenfingers is roughly: you want the network to share your data, then you have to share data for the network.
So for example you share 50MB of data for a large overshare for your 5MB web page.
What if you don’t have the 10x space when it gets big?
Well, then you have to make your website smaller, or extend your sharing space, or lower the oversharing.
It’s not intended for (nothing forbids it though) very large data sharing, more a personal sharing space.
How does it handle website updstes to smaller size or loss of host? Will the network “forget”/discsrd the old/uncovered version/data sutomstically?
When you share say an 5MB mp3, with the default x10 oversharing, you’ll negotiate with 10 other nodes to “you share mine, I’ll share yours”.
The system will (configurable) accept files up to twice that size. It will statistically even out to roughly the same size of your file x the oversharing.
And don’t forget, we’re not talking about TB of data, but Megabytes. You can “lose” some space quite many times before even hitting a Gigabyte. A GB is not much today, or so I think.
When you decide to update your mp3 (say you have a “song of the day”) then all nodes will get an update request. If they fail to update, they’ll just be dropped and a new node searched for. You can also just clean out the shares if you want to, they’ll repopulate automatically.
With oversharing, you just need one of them all to be ‘up’ to make the system work, you can share your new song, shut your PC down and it still works.
I guess that does encourage people to consider file size. Which is something most people don’t these days. I remember when 100k was considered a heavy load for users.
Yes, and even if your whole site is a full GB, with images, songs and whatnot, you’d only need to have 10GB free for sharing (which is tweakable too!), something many people have, or so I wager.
IPFS and Tahoe LAFS.
In the same vein yes, like a modern IPFS with more capabilities.
Unused disk space to be used as a shared, distributed LRU cache.
Interesting but tenfingers is not made for that use case.
You’re right. I was simply trying to articulate what the PP wrote.
Wonder what the performance of a fibonacci sequence is there. 😄