>>>>> "WD" == Wayne Davison <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >>>>> wrote the following on Thu, 18 Jul 2002 10:19:40 -0700 (PDT)
WD> Re: rzync's name cache. I've revamped it to be a very WD> dependable design that no longer depends on lock-step WD> synchronization in the expiration of old items (just in the WD> creation of new items, which is easy to achieve). Could you possibly explain this a little more? I'm not sure I follow you here with the "expiration of old items" talk. Or tell me if there is some basic document I should read that explains all this. The rdiff-backup protocol is not sophisticated and certainly has a lot to gain from these design considerations (not to say that I'll be motivated enough to do anything about it). WD> If we just register the active items that are currently being WD> sent over the wire, the name will need to live through the WD> entire sig, delta, patch, and (optionally) source-side-delete WD> steps. When the files are nearly up-to-date, having only 16 of WD> them will, I believe, be overly restrictive. Part of the WD> problem is that the buffered data on the sig-generating side WD> delays the source-side-delete messages quite a bit. If we had a WD> high-priority delete channel, that would help to alleviate WD> things, but I think you'll find that having several hundred WD> active names will be a better lower limit in your design WD> thinking. For what it's worth, if I understand what you mean by "active names" correctly, I believe rdiff-backup's protocol can sometimes have hundreds of active names. -- Ben Escoto -- To unsubscribe or change options: http://lists.samba.org/mailman/listinfo/rsync Before posting, read: http://www.tuxedo.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
