IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com> Mon, 07 December 2015 01:20 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 E16CF1A90C8 for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:20:53 -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 TwMo39unacxO for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:20:52 -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 C8FDA1A90C5 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Sun, 6 Dec 2015 17:20:51 -0800 (PST)
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="----sinikael-?=_1-14494512482910.5486012112814933"
From: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
To: storagesync@ietf.org
In-Reply-To: <20151206215458.GA6619@localhost.localdomain>
References: <CAPpPfeDPHGR+vn0=ji9frF2kr+J=YR76g0e7yOndKzz97bxdHQ@mail.gmail.com> <566014EA.2010705@tuxed.net> <CAO_Yprbc9LMc3TmpkKpmN9hUzAix13nfuSRS5Z8jPf6xu8xjNg@mail.gmail.com> <56601F18.8030409@tuxed.net> <CAO_YpraF1UrV49Po9PZx6ZoSbcLm5gRPEKXAdTT3VvPPPWEAfg@mail.gmail.com> <1449153485919-e58fed74-d7eab50a-01b3670c@fugue.com> <20151204181110.GA2418@localhost.localdomain> <2015120612140798437464@bjtu.edu.cn> <20151206173936.GB6290@localhost.localdomain> <1449426414825-9cdbb6fe-86b1149f-71354c71@fugue.com> <20151206215458.GA6619@localhost.localdomain>
Date: Mon, 07 Dec 2015 01:20:48 +0000
Message-Id: <1449451248586-f6bee07c-02d25585-e61e622f@fugue.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/WxkwTVQXueEa6HAqcqVjElIrU0w>
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 01:20:54 -0000

Sunday, Dec 6, 2015 4:54 PM Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> Etags are *much* simpler to implement on the server side than the WebDAV sync
> protocol because they do not require the server to keep sync tokens and
> metadata history. Note that the server has to keep metadata of *deleted* files
> to correctly implement WebDAV's sync protocol. Etags are less efficient in
> terms of network usage of course, but that's the tradeoff to be made.

There's nothing hard about keeping metadata history.

> I don't know what you mean with the last sentence.

If you use etags, there's no way to tell whether a file disappeared from the server because it was deleted or because the server got damaged.


--
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