[Tahoe-dev] comments from Wes Felter

[zooko at zooko.com]

edited

------- Forwarded Message

From: Wes Felter <wesley at felter.org>
Subject: Re: Tahoe!  :-)
Date: Sun, 6 May 2007 17:50:51 -0500
To: zooko at zooko.com

On May 4, 2007, at 1:35 PM, zooko at zooko.com wrote:

>
> Dear wmf:
>
> I'm very excited about this project, which we are hereby publically  
> announcing.
>
> http://allmydata.org
...
> Clean, well-loved, well-oiled code.  No cruft!
>
> Comprehensive unit tests.
>
> Good docs.


Hey Zooko, I saw the announcement and looked into it a bit, but as a  
p2p-critic rather than a Tahoe developer I didn't see anything new  
there compared to the good old Mojo Nation days. I am a little  
disappointed that Foolscap is just using SSL rather than end-to-end  
encryption. More worrying is the lack of any mention of NAT  
traversal. So I guess I'm glad you have such well-loved, tested, and  
documented code.

Given that the asymmetric bandwidth problem and the FEC expansion  
problem compound each other, a FEC service run by high-bandwidth  
peers would seem to make sense. A peer could upload one copy of data  
(pre-FEC) and then perform a verification on the resulting (post-FEC)  
shares in less time than doing FEC locally. If you assume that there  
are more backups than restores (and restores require only 1/4 the  
bandwidth of backups), then storage servers will have unused outgoing  
bandwidth. A FEC server OTOH has more outgoing than incoming, so  
perhaps intermixing the two services on the same nodes would be  
effectively free.

- --Wes


------- End of Forwarded Message