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

[Markus Unterwaditzer <[e-mail]>]

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.

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

On Sun, Dec 06, 2015 at 06:26:54PM +0000, Ted Lemon wrote:
> Sunday, Dec 6, 2015 12:39 PM Markus Unterwaditzer wrote:
> > What do you mean by "it"? ETags are simpler to implement than the above RFC,
> > and ETags are also required in WebDAV.
> 
> Etags are not really much simpler than a metadata versioning sync protocol, and they are a lot less efficient.   Having to fetch the whole directory for every directory that contains a change is expensive, both for the server and the client, unless changes are infrequent.   And because the server is the sole source of truth, it's a lot more fragile.
> 
> 
> --
> Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io
> 
> My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[e-mail]



> _______________________________________________
> Storagesync mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync