Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Nebulus: An IPFS-Less IPFS

nebulus.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–42 of 42 posts

Re: Nebulus: An IPFS-Less IPFS

#41

Post by saurik »

1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #39
saurik wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, if you are on a sufficiently-embedded system that you don't have 24MB of disk space, you almost certainly don't have enough RAM or CPU to run IPFS anyway.

"if" (Your guess may be incorrect) In some cases I have 24MB but I want to conserve space for other programs. The go-ipfs uncompressed binary is 56MB not 24MB. That is a multiple times larger than the combined size of the kernel and userland I use. Seems like making ipfs run on smaller systems is a goal some are interested in pursuing. I could be wrong but I doubt I am the the only one interested in this. https://git…

FWIW, most Raspberry Pi based systems are not what I would want to call "embedded"; and, in the grand scheme of things, they actually have fairly large CPUs. I am surrounded by such devices, and they all have plenty of storage as SD cards don't even come in tiny sizes anymore... I imagine we are simply at a point in time where the cost of creating an individual object encased in a plastic shell has high enough intrinsic overhead that having less than a gigabyte of storage would be nonsensical.

Re: Nebulus: An IPFS-Less IPFS

#42

Post by 1vuio0pswjnm7 »

saurik wrote: post #41
1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"if" (Your guess may be incorrect) In some cases I have 24MB but I want to conserve space for other programs. The go-ipfs uncompressed binary is 56MB not 24MB. That is a multiple times larger than the combined size of the kernel and userland I use. Seems like making ipfs run on smaller systems is a goal some are interested in pursuing. I could be wrong but I doubt I am the the only one interested in this. https://git…

FWIW, most Raspberry Pi based systems are not what I would want to call "embedded"; and, in the grand scheme of things, they actually have fairly large CPUs. I am surrounded by such devices, and they all have plenty of storage as SD cards don't even come in tiny sizes anymore... I imagine we are simply at a point in time where the cost of creating an individual object encased in a plastic shell has high enough intrin…

FWIW, OpenWRT is used for more than just RPi. Also, I never said "embedded" was the only use case. The categories were 1. embedded 2. small form factor computers with limited resources 3. older computers. That is a quick list, not a fully inclusive one. To be truthtful, I am not comfortable with 56MB binaries even on newer laptops where I have GB of free space.

I simply cannot agree with any comments that imply that keeping size small is a worthless goal. I could list hundreds of past and current examples where people are trying to reduce size and/or complaining about large size. k/shakti fits in a 2000's-era CPU cache. Arguably it does more than go-ipfs. At least, one can certainly do more with it.

It makes no sense to argue against making programs small, for a variety of reasons I am not even bothering to mention. Large programs offer no additonal benefits. Generally, no one is forcing anyone else to use smaller, faster programs if they do not want to, UNIX utilities being one obvious exception; there are others.

I will continue to write, use and appreciate smaller, faster, more resource-efficient programs. I am not the only one. You will have many more folks than just me to convince that they should ignore size.

Post reply on HN