3 ms·

I'm open to suggestions for better erasure coding storage ratio :)

• compressedgas 9mo ago
  There is nothing wrong with the ratio. It is that for this ratio it is less computation to use the Merkle tree and plain replication rather than erasure coding. My suggestion is already stated. Store four copies and use the Merkle tree to determine which is valid.
  • DeusCodex 9mo ago
    You know what, that might be a very good idea, if encoding speeds on my really crappy hard-drive weren't under a second. But no I do see where you're coming from, and for larger files that concept does apply, but blockframe wants to protect your files from circumstances that you can't control, and the concept is still, have the file as its own entity, and to keep it planted, we use RS to make sure nothing funky happens. Small files do tend to cause random access speeds, that's why they're not split up.
    • compressedgas 9mo ago
      As a post script, I should add that I had a thought that the RS(1,3) was less redundant than copies=4 as I think that RS(1,3) requires more than 1 of its four symbols to be present. Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_cor... which gives (n=1 - k=3)/2 is 1 as the answer to the question of the number of missing symbols that RS(1,3) can recover which means that RS(1,3) is not a worse way of storing four copies but a worse way of storing 2 copies. It takes the space of four copies to store what only has the redundancy of two copies.