Changes between Version 12 and Version 13 of ServerSelection

Timestamp:

2011-04-26T12:23:22Z (14 years ago)

Author:

zooko

Comment:

s/allmydata.org/tahoe-lafs.org/

ServerSelection

@@ -10 +10 @@
  * Jacob Appelbaum and Harold Gonzales want to specify a set of servers which collectively are guaranteed to have at least K shares -- they intend to use this to specify the ones that are running as Tor hidden services and thus are attack-resistant (but also extra slow-and-expensive to reach).  Interestingly the server selection policy on ''download'' should be that the K servers which are Tor hidden services should be downloaded from as a last resort. 
  * Several people -- again I'm sorry I've forgotten specific attribution -- want to identify which servers live in which cluster or co-lo or geographical area, and then to distribute shares evenly across clusters/colos/geographical-areas instead of evenly across servers.
-  * Here's an example of this desire, Nathan Eisenberg asked on the mailing list for "Proximity Aware Decoding": http://allmydata.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-December/003286.html
+  * Here's an example of this desire, Nathan Eisenberg asked on the mailing list for "Proximity Aware Decoding": http://tahoe-lafs.org/pipermail/tahoe-dev/2009-December/003286.html
   * If you have ''K+1'' shares stored in a single location then you can repair after a loss (such as a hard drive failure) in that location without having to transfer data from other locations. This can save bandwidth expenses (since inter-location bandwidth is typically free), and of course it also means you can recover from that hard drive failure in that one location even if all the other locations have been stomped to death by Godzilla.