IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Storagesync] Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 07 December 2015 01:35 UTC

Return-Path: <mellon@fugue.com>
X-Original-To: storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F8061A9109 for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:35:44 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.912
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.912 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=ham
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id UV8yYqL4aIEj for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:35:43 -0800 (PST)
Received: from fugue.com (mail-2.fugue.com [IPv6:2a01:7e01::f03c:91ff:fee4:ad68]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2E87A1A9108 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:35:42 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14494521394890.6165189987514168"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
To: storagesync@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <CAO_YpramyzAZ8hS6aphmBNw2FiKTpesb9uW7uGHtjRH_YkPAJg@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20151204181110.GA2418@localhost.localdomain> <1449255654746-36498631-5591108f-793d865a@fugue.com> <8F085EBA-F6A4-4FBD-8B8E-1F9AE114FD05@unterwaditzer.net> <CAO_YpraJsDKbOXD9MdxHqeAYTMoiZFyViHX+P2PtD=9hpRz9MQ@mail.gmail.com> <20151206173646.GA6290@localhost.localdomain> <1449447450498-61af5a96-1c461047-3019ac1e@gmail.com> <20151207002020.GA5002@localhost.localdomain> <1449448362292-7d42d496-109559e8-4177b3f9@gmail.com> <20151207003810.GA24130@localhost.localdomain> <1449449404474-72724227-c54ecf87-7d18f3b0@gmail.com> <20151207005426.GA29483@localhost.localdomain> <CAO_YpramyzAZ8hS6aphmBNw2FiKTpesb9uW7uGHtjRH_YkPAJg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 01:35:39 +0000
Message-Id: <1449452139832-4f314827-a7ecd596-c5312339@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/RrN3fD5OtPqyGq4bJtrP_Cz8a-Q>
Subject: Re: [Storagesync] Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1
X-BeenThere: storagesync@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15
Precedence: list
List-Id: Mechanisms to synchronize client file systems with Internet-based data storage services <storagesync.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/storagesync>, <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/storagesync/>
List-Post: <mailto:storagesync@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync>, <mailto:storagesync-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 01:35:44 -0000

Sunday, Dec 6, 2015 8:09 PM Linhui Sun wrote:
>> Those are sync conflicts, how to deal with then depends on the kind of
>> data you
>> deal with.
>>
> That works, but do you think this could make the things complicated? It
> sounds like different situations have different mechanisms. Why not just
> make the metadata exchanged, any disadvantage for doing that?

Right.   Conflict resolution is a layer above syncing.   Could be automatic, could require human intervention (although that's best avoided if possible).   Ideally you have a way to go back and undo a change if something important was lost or overwritten.   This is another reason why keeping a versioned metadata store is good.


--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email