IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: ietf-nntp Issue: number range rollover

"Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net> Sun, 29 December 1996 00:05 UTC

Received: from cnri by ietf.org id aa10284; 28 Dec 96 19:05 EST
Received: from ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM by CNRI.Reston.VA.US id aa15942; 28 Dec 96 19:05 EST
Received: (from majordomo@localhost) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) id SAA04997 for ietf-nntp-outgoing; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:02:24 -0600 (CST)
X-Authentication-Warning: academ2.academ.com: majordomo set sender to owner-ietf-nntp using -f
Received: from academ.com (root@ACADEM.COM [198.137.249.2]) by academ2.academ.com (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id SAA04992 for <ietf-nntp@ACADEM2.ACADEM.COM>; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:02:22 -0600 (CST)
Received: from office.demon.net (office.demon.net [193.195.224.1]) by academ.com (8.8.4/8.7.1) with SMTP id SAA02299 for <ietf-nntp@academ.com>; Sat, 28 Dec 1996 18:02:19 -0600 (CST)
Subject: Re: ietf-nntp Issue: number range rollover
To: USENET news manager <newsmaster@ucs.cam.ac.uk>
Date: Sun, 29 Dec 1996 00:02:16 +0000 (GMT)
From: "Clive D.W. Feather" <clive@demon.net>
Cc: ietf-nntp@academ.com
In-Reply-To: <199612282249.WAA15532@lyra.csx.cam.ac.uk> from "USENET news manager" at Dec 28, 96 10:49:00 pm
X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL24]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <851817736.13662.0@office.demon.net>
Sender: owner-ietf-nntp@academ.com
Precedence: bulk

>> (4) Make article numbers be modulo 2^32. Actually, this idea can be
>> improved on. Divide the number space into 4 quadrants:
[...]
> "It's not that simple."

Probably not.

> (1) If anyone's reading news via NFS or direct local spool access on the
> server (yes, it still happens!), the news server has no way of knowing 
> when clients have stopped using the old numbers.
[...]

True. I don't know if these all kill the idea.

Perhaps clients should be required to treat article numbers in Q1 and Q3 as
equivalent. But how the hell do you word that ?

> And finally ... a random potential problem of a different sort - there might
> not be sufficient free inodes to double up all the directory entries... and
> that would be messier to handle than running out while accepting a new
> article.

On Unix you don't need new inodes - they're just new directory entries
pointing to the *same* inodes.

-- 
Clive D.W. Feather    | Associate Director  | Director
Tel: +44 181 371 1138 | Demon Internet Ltd. | CityScape Internet Services Ltd.
Fax: +44 181 371 1150 | <clive@demon.net>   | <cdwf@cityscape.co.uk>

v2.8.7 | Report a Bug | By Email