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

Linhui Sun <lh.sunlinh@gmail.com> Sat, 05 December 2015 06:09 UTC

Return-Path: <lh.sunlinh@gmail.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 6415F1A1A90 for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:09:32 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.999
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.999 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001] 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 wtzGUddcjne1 for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:09:30 -0800 (PST)
Received: from mail-wm0-x22e.google.com (mail-wm0-x22e.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:400c:c09::22e]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D42421A1A91 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:09:29 -0800 (PST)
Received: by wmvv187 with SMTP id v187so101990591wmv.1 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 22:09:28 -0800 (PST)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc:content-type; bh=zhuRQ5Dk+3e0pFdI1AtBsTZrlLL2FEz2eEEpP3Zj18I=; b=0e8iCBgwPM4h2OvhXN4QCzdYQuD/pc/HizyR+ivBYUXQ5NVK4xlp3E56OAW5VyzqfL 1BZYzmC1ie+nSIfoGRTH3KirkgNBsXX3B87JCo2tNLh8NcxT1l8F/BBntnNiE3DanHd4 xGYYKijshw/m+73deiTXxzOjH7idReX1rAtpx9O7YcURYoS1WQxzLg1E3rrG/LxjLuE6 ZERoSrODJRgS4Rd4ZLgM/5VVqDqAsbyEjbKk9EP0RLmAd8ZdPCwMfIzbxo525T7KxTTE wgaGA0YKN5GL5v1WZYJUGBsXtawGzw8Og0aA+UzLpMCEU5vdqMu/i+ksrBHFqOGRP7sq ImeQ==
X-Received: by 10.28.89.137 with SMTP id n131mr9452861wmb.9.1449295768504; Fri, 04 Dec 2015 22:09:28 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Received: by 10.28.27.147 with HTTP; Fri, 4 Dec 2015 22:09:08 -0800 (PST)
In-Reply-To: <1449294461284-b55dffbc-67521f90-03218253@fugue.com>
References: <mailman.108.1449000023.26068.storagesync@ietf.org> <1449004445.2745758.455126129.5028FD2B@webmail.messagingengine.com> <CAO_YprZhCmUxEf=aGCYL=+CLbjUoD1ifpDFsrS7N40Npo4wr+w@mail.gmail.com> <1449050174.3667910.455617161.12EEE3C5@webmail.messagingengine.com> <1449051540970-b577e6c2-393e54ef-bbe05be4@gmail.com> <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> <D51EEF1B-13C8-4BBB-91C0-1B473D17759C@cern.ch> <1449170047359-e297ed6e-b9fd94e9-570ca980@fugue.com> <CAO_YpraSokj1S5-mZ17nMiN91c+PfHtMfGSjsFZ1zopQ59eUPQ@mail.gmail.com> <1449246571559-58500bfc-f92fedd1-047d217b@fugue.com> <CAO_YprZOjDN46-kEJhmjbyokRjbPCU2KNK1xrzQiH3vQTm4w9w@mail.gmail.com> <1449294461284-b55dffbc-67521f90-03218253@fugue.com>
From: Linhui Sun <lh.sunlinh@gmail.com>
Date: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 14:09:08 +0800
Message-ID: <CAO_YprYx4WJc2meJiXPwcUM-eSuTRgHBt5PoeLGGTSd6hxBVLg@mail.gmail.com>
To: Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="001a1140cdb874d0df05262077de"
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/hh9p_x00Qmka0-8uATdwYqH_6o8>
Cc: storagesync <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: Sat, 05 Dec 2015 06:09:32 -0000

2015-12-05 13:47 GMT+08:00 Ted Lemon <mellon@fugue.com>:

> Saturday, Dec 5, 2015 12:28 AM Linhui Sun wrote:
> > I'm not very familiar with the distributed peer model (I view it as p2p,
> > please correct me if I am wrong). From the example you have provided
> > previously, it seems that it works fine with 2 participants. But I don't
> > know whether it works well when multiple participants are willing to
> share
> > a file/folder. I'm asking this question since we need to know which model
> > should the iss probably employ.
>
> The distributed peer model simply means that there is no server.   There
> are only instances of the database.   Any instance can be modified, and the
> changes will be propagated to other instances when they sync.   A change
> made on one instance may propagate to another instance through a third
> instance.
>
> Importantly, this avoids the situation where the metadata is lost on the
> server, and as a consequence the data is all removed from the client.
>  Since there is no server, and no client, but only peers, neither peer is
> considered authoritative, so a metadata loss on either peer can result in a
> safe recovery without data loss.
>
> In practice, in most cases there will be one or more instances that are
> treated as servers, and then one or more that are treated more as clients,
> but now you can have two or three "servers" and it doesn't matter which one
> the "client" syncs to; the new information will propagate to the other two
> "servers."
>
It sounds like this could resolve your IMAP issue to some extent. I'm
wondering could we understand this in another way for the practical
application: we have a group of servers and a group of clients. Inside the
group of servers, they use a explicit distributed peer model and any new
info will be propagated to the group members. Between the server group and
client group, it is simply C/S model but a client can sync to arbitrary one
from the server group. However inside the group of clients, they have no
communications since I don't want my client to talk to anyone else.

>
>
> --
> 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
>
>