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

"qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn> Thu, 31 December 2015 01:50 UTC

Return-Path: <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn>
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 E3A6C1A02BE for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:50:23 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: YES
X-Spam-Score: 7.239
X-Spam-Level: *******
X-Spam-Status: Yes, score=7.239 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_50=0.8, CHARSET_FARAWAY_HEADER=3.2, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, J_CHICKENPOX_14=0.6, J_CHICKENPOX_16=0.6, MIME_8BIT_HEADER=0.3, MIME_CHARSET_FARAWAY=2.45, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD=-0.01] autolearn=no
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 M6bg4gtZqZ_K for <storagesync@ietfa.amsl.com>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:50:22 -0800 (PST)
Received: from cnnic.cn (smtp13.cnnic.cn [218.241.118.13]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 5F9EB1A01A8 for <storagesync@ietf.org>; Wed, 30 Dec 2015 17:50:20 -0800 (PST)
Received: from CNNIC-PC (unknown [218.241.103.69]) by ocmail02.zx.nicx.cn (Coremail) with SMTP id AQAAf0DZ4DjWiYRWCXInCQ--.28784S2; Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:50:14 +0800 (CST)
Date: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 09:49:58 +0800
From: "qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn" <qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn>
To: fsong <fsong@bjtu.edu.cn>, storagesync <storagesync@ietf.org>
References: <2015123016551968347627@cnnic.cn>, <201512302112581402693@bjtu.edu.cn>
X-Priority: 3
X-Has-Attach: no
X-Mailer: Foxmail 7, 2, 5, 136[cn]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Message-ID: <201512310949580359422@cnnic.cn>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_001_NextPart574857665052_=----"
X-CM-TRANSID: AQAAf0DZ4DjWiYRWCXInCQ--.28784S2
X-Coremail-Antispam: 1UD129KBjvJXoW7CrW5KF1UGFW5GF1kXryfCrg_yoW8Aw13pr 13Jr13KF1kXry5ur1kJw4xuFW8JF10yw47JFn8Jry8Arn8AF1IgF1xXr4rJr9rGryjqryj qr45Xa45Ar4UJaDanT9S1TB71UUUUUUqnTZGkaVYY2UrUUUUjbIjqfuFe4nvWSU5nxnvy2 9KBjDU0xBIdaVrnRJUUUHjb7Iv0xC_Cr1lb4IE77IF4wAFF20E14v26r1j6r4UM7CY07I2 0VC2zVCF04k26cxKx2IYs7xG6rWj6s0DM7CIcVAFz4kK6r1j6r18M28lY4IEw2IIxxk0rw A2F7IY1VAKz4vEj48ve4kI8wA2z4x0Y4vE2Ix0cI8IcVAFwI0_Ar0_tr1l84ACjcxK6xII jxv20xvEc7CjxVAFwI0_Cr0_Gr1UM28EF7xvwVC2z280aVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwA2z4x0Y4 vEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAFwI0_Gr1j6F4UJwAS0I0E0xvYzxvE52x082IY62kv0487Mc02F40E n4AKxVAvwIkv4cxYr24l5I8CrVCF0I0E4I0vr24l5I8CrVC20s02628v4x8GjsIEw4AK0w Av7VC0I7IYx2IY67AKxVWUJVWUGwAv7VC2z280aVAFwI0_Jr0_Gr1lOx8S6xCaFVCjc4AY 6r1j6r4UM4x0Y48IcxkI7VAKI48JM4xvF2IEb7IF0Fy264kE64k0F24lFcxC0VAYjxAxZF 0Ex2IqxwCjr7xvwVCIw2I0I7xG6c02F41lc2xSY4AK67AK6w4l42xK82IYc2Ij64vIr41l 4I8I3I0E4IkC6x0Yz7v_Jr0_Gr1lx2IqxVAqx4xG67AKxVWUGVWUWwC20s026x8GjcxK67 AKxVWUGVWUWwC2zVAF1VAY17CE14v26r1Y6r17MIIYrxkI7VAKI48JMIIF0xvE2Ix0cI8I cVAFwI0_Jr0_JF4lIxAIcVC0I7IYx2IY6xkF7I0E14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvE42xK8VAvwI 8IcIk0rVWrZr1j6s0DMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIE14v26r1j6r4UMIIF0xvEx4A2jsIEc7CjxVAF wI0_Jr0_Gr1l6VACY4xI67k04243AbIYCTnIWIevJa73UjIFyTuYvjxU4mL9UUUUU
X-CM-SenderInfo: xtlq5x5drzvxw6fq0xffof0/
Archived-At: <http://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/storagesync/u_6uS4Lk9Oc4j1oFdOJ_B1d5dOM>
Subject: [Storagesync] 回复: 回复: recent issues discussed (plain text)
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: Thu, 31 Dec 2015 01:50:24 -0000

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. 
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.

Best wishes!
Xiaowei Qin



 
发件人: Fei Song
发送时间: 2015-12-30 21:12
收件人: qinxiaowei@cnnic.cn; 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
>
>
>
>