[Storagesync] 回复: 回复: recent issues discussed (plain text)

["Fei Song" <[e-mail]>]

--------------
Fei Song
>Hi, Fei
>IMO, just improving efficiency of sync protocol might be not enough or hardly improve data rate. As we know, the Internet is an best-effort architecture, so the Internet provides no guarantees on end-to-end reliability or performance. 

There are indeed many intermediate elements between two ends.

>On the contrary, wide-area Internet communications are subject to a number of bottlenecks that adversely impact performance, including latency, packet loss, network outages, inefficient protocols, and inter-network friction. That's also the main reason for the existence of the CDN and the CDNI. 
>So, IMO, we should do lots of work to improve the data upload rate.

We need to consider the data rate upgrade, which is significant for the user experience.
If I did not get wrong, this issue is complicated and should be seperated into multiple steps. like protocol improvement, deployment optimization, etc.

>
>Best wishes!
>Xiaowei Qin
>
>
>
> 
>发件人： Fei Song
>发送时间： 2015-12-30 21:12
>收件人： [e-mail]; storagesync
>主题： 回复: Re: [Storagesync] recent issues discussed (plain text)
>Dear Xiaowei,
> 
>Very good suggestion and link. Adding speed into efficiency or treat it individually, what is your opinion?
> 
> 
>--------------
>Fei Song
>>
>>hi，
>>End users may be more concerned about the improvement of the upload rate. According to the report in"http://testmyiphone.com",  the average downstream throughput is more than 4490 Kbps, the average upstream throughput is only about 869 Kbps.
>>
>>
>>----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>Here is the latest version. Please email me if anything is missed:
>>1.The design targets of WebDAV, rsync and other existing approaches?
>>2.The potential use cases of ISS, such as client/server, git-like pattern, svn, etc.
>>3.The efficiency improvements might be the second goal for standardizing ISS protocol
>>4.CORS headers on storage sync APIs
>>5.What is needed for the ISS: a sync protocol or a generalized API
>>6.remoteStorage draft discussion
>>  a)relationship vs WebDAV
>>  b)MOVE action (synchronization) should be added or not
>>  c)Beside web browser, desktop apps (by hacking way)
>>  d)comics of new standard
>>  e)etag issues vs metadata
>>    i.is mainly for identifying whether a document is changed or not
>>    ii.is easy to implement than that of WebDAV sync protocol or not
>>    iii.the metadata file contains all etags for all files at both client and server side or not
>>  f)the distributed peer model (no server) and C/S mode
>>  g)a fancy example (with pics) of OfflineIMAP’s sync process in following URL
>>
>>
>>
>>