gpg: Signature made Wed May 14 13:01:32 2008 UTC using DSA key ID 715FC6D7
gpg: Good signature from "NextGen$ <nextgens@laposte.net>"
gpg: aka "NextGen$ <nextgens35@laposte.net>"
gpg: aka "Florent Daignière <florent.daigniere@laposte.net>"
* Jano <alejandro@???> [2008-05-14 12:55:49]:
> Florent Daignière wrote:
>
> > * Jano <alejandro@???> [2008-05-14
> > 11:21:05]:
> >
> >> > Personally I'm pretty skeptical of anything requiring more than 100MB.
> >>
> >> However, current implementation (IINM) uses the cache to resume downloads.
> >> Thus, downloading anything bigger than that in more than one go has the
> >> potential of a lot of waste in retries (hence BW & time).
> >>
> >> I know, it's a spurious reason since downloads in progress could be saved
> >> somewhere else until completion... but still is a reason for now.
> >>
> >
> > They are good reasons why we shouldn't implement download-resuming.
>
> Could you please elaborate?
>
For the n-th. time : not having that "feature" gives users a good
incentive to keep their nodes up.
