On Mon, 2009-02-02 at 17:43 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > > I don't think it does. At least not in a way that is obvious to me. > > The one and only fundamental limitation of the current interface > > offered by venti is that I can give it a score to something that > > doesn't belong to me and it gives me the information back. It is > > the limitation of the API, not the way data is managed. IOW, if > > a block that I genuinely own happens to also be referenced from > > a hierarchy that I do NOT have access to -- its ok. > > ownership doesn't mean anything at the venti level. it really > is just a virtual disk drive with lba80 content addressing. > one doesn't "own" blocks on a regular disk drive, either.
Depends on how you look at it. From the drive's perspective -- you're right. Nobody owns blocks. However, if a certain block happens to be part of a filesystems that uses this particular drive then the ownership can and will be tracked. > suspending the preceeding logic for a bit, supposing that > you did "track ownership", then No need to suspend the logic and run this thought experiment. I have no interest in assigning ACL to blocks. That's why I said that the API that venti currently has is ill-suited for the kind of public usage I have in mind. That doesn't mean that it should be replaced or mutilated. It simply means firewalling in a spirit of venti/ro The proxy API will have to track the ownership. And it is very likely to be more hierarchy-oriented, than stand-alone blocks-oriented. Thanks, Roman.
