Re: [freenet-dev] Post-0.7.0 priorities

On Friday 09 May 2008 07:27, Victor Denisov wrote:
> | Automatic bandwidth calibration. Other p2p apps have this, we should
> have it.
>
> Good idea. Also, we should definitely look into better utilizing
> available bandwidth. Freenet's the only p2p app which consistently
> underutilizes my upload limit (~ 2 Mbit/s out of 8 Mbit/s of link
> capacity). I understand that we don't want to create supernodes, but
> come on, 2 Mbit/s is *nothing* these days.

IMHO automatic bandwidth calibration will help a lot with this. Beyond that
we're looking at token passing, which may be too big for 0.7.1.
>
> | Client layer changes: I propose to move the entire client layer onto
> disk. We
>
> I say this deserves to be moved to High or Very High priority. The main
> problem is not memory usage as is (most people have 1 Gb+ of RAM now),
> but rather inability of Java to properly grow and shrink its memory
> usage on the "as needed" basis. Not a single native Windows application
> behaves this way, and I doubt many users are prepared to understand and
> adjust memory limits manually. Heck, even I, being a Java developer,
> spent several days trying to understand what heap limit to set for
> Freenet so that it won't run out of memory (and that it uses ~ 2x memory
> on 64-bit JVM doesn't help any). Also, perhaps we can detect OOM errors
> and offer the user to increase the memory limit next time he tries to
> run Freenet?

Agreed, memory usage is a usability issue: the user shouldn't have to care
about it.
>
> | Auto-update for plugins: We should have had this ages ago. Several
> people have
>
> Shouldn't we consider auto-updating bundled applications as well? Or
> perhaps providing an auto-update API for use by third-party apps? Just a
> thought.

Maybe, that would be harder though. I would be happy to discuss it with their
authors.
>
> Hope the above was helpful,
>
> Regards,
> Victor Denisov.