Re: freenet performance

Alex R. Mosteo wrote:
> Caco Patane wrote:
> 
>>>> However the current 0.5 works pretty well IME.
>>>
>>>
>>> that's great news.
>>> how is performance compared to for example aMule or eMule ?
>>
>>
>>
>> The main function of Freenet is not transfer performance, is anonymity.
>>
>> Freenet is slow (my experience), is nice for text-based stuff
>> (Freesites) and a few images. I have no experience retriving files
>> with more than 5MB of size.
> 
> 
> My experience has been fairly good. Using Frost, I'd say I've retrieved 
>  > 90% of the large files I've tried. And the speed is usually quite 
> good, again IME. Specially, for people used to wait in queues in eMule 
> it shouldn't be a new pain. The Frost progress bar is mesmerizing to me...

Sorry, where it says Frost it should say Fuqid.

> 
> I guess the real pain is in inserting large files. I used to insert some 
> text-only small sites and the time required wasn't negligible.
> 
> In truth and IMO, a popular release site a-la somethingreactor is 
> something bound to happen sooner or later, here or over I2P or something 
> else.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> chat mailing list
> [email protected]
> Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
> Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
> Or 
> mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe 
> 
> 

_______________________________________________
chat mailing list
[email protected]
Archived: http://news.gmane.org/gmane.network.freenet.general
Unsubscribe at http://dodo.freenetproject.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/chat
Or mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe