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

Hi

On 周三, 12月 2, 2015 at 17:56, Hugo González Labrador <ietf@hugo.labkode.com>
wrote:
On Wed, Dec 2, 2015, at 08:20 AM, Linhui Sun wrote:
Hi
2015-12-02 5:14 GMT+08:00 Hugo González Labrador < ietf@hugo.labkode.com [ietf@hugo.labkode.com] > :
Hi,
from my point of view the remoteStorage project addresses a subset of
the use cases of the WebDAV specification.
The main difference I can observe is that the specification is built on
REST instead of XML-based communication.
I personally like much more REST than WebDAV because it is more
developer friendly and it is faster to develop.
Maybe the remoteStorage API becomes the next WebDAV :)
However, the remoteStorage API does not provide a way of synchronising
data, this task is delegated to the developers.
Is there a plan to provide such feature based on the outcome of this
draft?
I'm a little bit confused why you say the remoteStorage does not provide that.
Is that because remoteStorage does not perform like a typical sync services
(e.g. dropbox...) or you are saying something else?
Yes, because it does not offer synchronisation capabilities. Got it. And What I am wondering is that do we need to include those
capabilities in a base specifications. Since it is hard to standardize the
capabilities like dedup or delta. Maybe a better way is to define those in a
separate specification, something like extensions. For a base document, we just
need to define how to perform sync operations. BTW, I want to introduce ClawIO ( [http://clawio.github.io] http://clawio.github.io [http://clawio.github.io] ), a research
project to benchmark different synchronisation protocols against
different data backends with special attention to provide a common sync
API.
A common API for different sync protocols is being created based on the
architecture specified in this draft (control and data servers) and the
I cannot find a distributed architecture in this draft. It seems that they
handle metadata and content data together, just like a normal web service.
ClawIO is fully distributed. Every logical unit is a different server than be
scaled out. Data and Metadata channels are independent from each other and
reside on different servers. That is widely employed in popular sync services. And that is also beneficial
to privacy to some extent. But in the context of sync in browser (which is
mainly considered in the remoteStorage), I don't know whether this is
reasonable. But I think we should deploy distributed architecture although it
will make things complicated.
Regards, Linhui
Regards,
Linhui
one from the CERN EOS project (management, disk and queue servers).
The Phase I has implemented the ownCloud Sync Protocol and Phase II will
implement the SeaFile Sync Protocol.
The choice of these protocols among others is because they are really
opposed to each other in terms of syncing (delta vs non-delta,
state-based vs log/event/git-based sync …), so finding a common approach
is more challenging.
Providing a base specification/architecture to measure the feasibility
of this draft is one of the objectives of the project.
I believe that the work being done here and in ClawIO are supplementary
to each other and I think mutual collaboration could be beneficial for
both sides.
Also, if there is interest, the remoteStorage API can be added to
ClawIO.
Best regards,
Hugo Gonzalez Labrador
On Tue, Dec 1, 2015, at 09:00 PM, storagesync-request@ietf.org [storagesync-request@ietf.org] wrote:
> Send Storagesync mailing list submissions to
> storagesync@ietf.org [storagesync@ietf.org]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> [https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
[https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync]
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> storagesync-request@ietf.org [storagesync-request@ietf.org]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> storagesync-owner@ietf.org [storagesync-owner@ietf.org]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Storagesync digest..."
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> available (Michiel de Jong)
> 2. Re: New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> available (Gihan Dias)
> 3. Re: New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage Internet-Draft
> available (Fei Song)
> _______________________________________________
> Storagesync mailing list
> Storagesync@ietf.org [Storagesync@ietf.org]
> [https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
[https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync]
> Email had 3 attachments:
> + [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> Internet-Draft available
> 2k (message/rfc822)
> + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> Internet-Draft available
> 1k (message/rfc822)
> + Re: [Storagesync] New version of draft-dejong-remotestorage
> Internet-Draft available
> 2k (message/rfc822)
_______________________________________________
Storagesync mailing list
Storagesync@ietf.org [Storagesync@ietf.org]
[https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync
[https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync]