IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

Markus Unterwaditzer <markus@unterwaditzer.net> Fri, 04 December 2015 18:11 UTC

Return-Path: <markus@unterwaditzer.net>
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 4EAC21A92AF for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:11:22 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.25
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.25 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HELO_EQ_DE=0.35, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7] 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 51kPPC4sOv2G for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:11:19 -0800 (PST)
Received: from draco.uberspace.de (draco.uberspace.de [95.143.172.133]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 2E4121AC3FD for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 10:11:14 -0800 (PST)
Received: (qmail 22810 invoked from network); 4 Dec 2015 18:11:12 -0000
Received: from localhost (HELO localhost) (127.0.0.1) by draco.uberspace.de with SMTP; 4 Dec 2015 18:11:12 -0000
Date: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 19:11:10 +0100
From: Markus Unterwaditzer <markus@unterwaditzer.net>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Message-ID: <20151204181110.GA2418@localhost.localdomain>
References: <1449052128.3674794.455635937.667C3E1F@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAPpPfeAdrCZcsYZo7=W6N14K4F2LutXN8BFTetikzKZSr8+vVA@mail.gmail.com> <259424f4.2bca.1516717ef55.Coremail.fsong@bjtu.edu.cn> <56600F0A.9000200@tuxed.net> <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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; micalg="pgp-sha256"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"; boundary="gKMricLos+KVdGMg"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <1449153485919-e58fed74-d7eab50a-01b3670c@fugue.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.24 (2015-08-30)
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/dQQ90whMSJMouRQwfFEhi5DNaDo>
Cc: storagesync@ietf.org
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: Fri, 04 Dec 2015 18:11:22 -0000

On Thu, Dec 03, 2015 at 02:38:05PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Thursday, Dec 3, 2015 6:00 AM Linhui Sun wrote:
> > However I'd prefer HTTP rather than WebDAV. Since I still think WebDAV is
> > not suitable for today's sync service. The frequency of operations is far
> > higher than what WebDAV expects. For example, frequently sending propfind
> > to detect changes is not a good way in my view.
> 
> WebDAV is HTTP.   However, your point about propfind is correct--that doesn't
> scale.   What you want is a separate layer for dealing with synchronization
> of metadata.   You could use HTTP transport to do this, but not propfind.

We do have that separate layer in the form of
https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc6578.txt and so far only a handful of FOSS servers
have implemented it. The fully-interopable way to synchronize servers still
includes a fallback to a full PROPFIND.

ETags on folder listings are arguably simpler to implement than a partial
transaction history. remoteStorage requires those, and consequently all servers
must implement it.

> 
> 
> --
> Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io
> 
> My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/mellon@fugue.com



> _______________________________________________
> Storagesync mailing list
> Storagesync@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email