bellisimo!
On Fri, Feb 13, 2009 at 3:50 AM, andrey mirtchovski
wrote:
>> On the first hand again, given the occasional reports of "replica hosed me"
>> I'm not terribly keen on trusting
>
> given the occasional reports of "software X hosed me" (for any and all
> X), i don't think we should be ter
> On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:49:58AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > exactly. the point i was trying to make, and evidently
> > was being too coy about, is that 330 odd gb wouldn't
> > be as useful a number as the sum of the sizes of all the
> > new/changed files from all the dump days. this wou
> > On the first hand again, given the occasional reports of "replica hosed me"
> > I'm not terribly keen on trusting
>
> given the occasional reports of "software X hosed me" (for any and all
> X), i don't think we should be terribly keen on using computers at
> all.
or, being a programmer, one
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 09:50:50AM -0700, andrey mirtchovski wrote:
> > On the first hand again, given the occasional reports of "replica hosed me"
> > I'm not terribly keen on trusting
>
> given the occasional reports of "software X hosed me" (for any and all
> X), i don't think we should be terr
> On the first hand again, given the occasional reports of "replica hosed me"
> I'm not terribly keen on trusting
given the occasional reports of "software X hosed me" (for any and all
X), i don't think we should be terribly keen on using computers at
all.
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 07:49:58AM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> exactly. the point i was trying to make, and evidently
> was being too coy about, is that 330 odd gb wouldn't
> be as useful a number as the sum of the sizes of all the
> new/changed files from all the dump days. this would
> be a
> On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 07:49 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > exactly. the point i was trying to make, and evidently
> > was being too coy about, is that 330 odd gb wouldn't
> > be as useful a number as the sum of the sizes of all the
> > new/changed files from all the dump days. this would
> >
On Thu, 2009-02-12 at 07:49 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> exactly. the point i was trying to make, and evidently
> was being too coy about, is that 330 odd gb wouldn't
> be as useful a number as the sum of the sizes of all the
> new/changed files from all the dump days. this would
> be a useful
Stop being sensible! There is no room on this list for such behaviour.
brucee
On Thu, Feb 12, 2009 at 11:49 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:28 AM, erik quanstrom
>> wrote:
>> >> > what extra work would that be,
>> >>
>> >> that it pulls files in their entirety (IOW: cp /
> On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:28 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> >> > what extra work would that be,
> >>
> >> that it pulls files in their entirety (IOW: cp /n/sources/... /)
> >
> > i would be very suprised if a single copy of sources had many shared
> > blocks.
>
> He doesn't want a single copy tho
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 7:28 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> > what extra work would that be,
>>
>> that it pulls files in their entirety (IOW: cp /n/sources/... /)
>
> i would be very suprised if a single copy of sources had many shared
> blocks.
He doesn't want a single copy though, he is hoping
i have no problem with pragmatism.
brucee
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 11:22 +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
>> get over it. it works fine on my found machine. and my $300 eeePC.
>> what exactly doesn't work?
>
> no argument there. my automechani
> it works fine on my found machine. and my $300 eeePC.
9vx (built on another computer, and off of an external HDD) works just
fine in eeePC. But what are you using for a Plan 9 environment on
that thing?
in case your milkshake's better than mine
ak
On Wed, 2009-02-11 at 11:22 +1100, Bruce Ellis wrote:
> get over it. it works fine on my found machine. and my $300 eeePC.
> what exactly doesn't work?
no argument there. my automechanic still uses MS DOS 5.0. works
great for him. i tried to tell him about plan9, but strangely
enough he also told
get over it. it works fine on my found machine. and my $300 eeePC.
what exactly doesn't work?
brucee
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 9:45 AM, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote:
> On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 17:28 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
>> what leads you to beleve that that amount of sharing will be
>> significa
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 17:28 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> what leads you to beleve that that amount of sharing will be
> significant?
Just a hunch so far. I don't have hard data to prove anything.
On the other hand, I'd be surprised if massive updates (not pulling
in a couple of months) didn't be
> > what extra work would that be, and if there is extra work, could you explain
> > why this would be a problem?
>
> Correct me if I'm wrong, but my understanding of how pull works is
> that it pulls files in their entirety (IOW: cp /n/sources/... /)
> which means that shared blocks get copied as
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 17:10 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:32:18PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > i'm still not following why replica won't work? getting in underneath
> > > the fs seems to require some extra justification and it seems to require
> > > some very lo
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:22:42PM -0500, Nathaniel W Filardo wrote:
> > since 9fs never stopped working, why could you not just export (with
> > httpd) from your machine a -C mount of sources? then the robots hammer
> > you but since you're cached, you don't hammer sources?
>
> Sorry to rain on y
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:32:18PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > i'm still not following why replica won't work? getting in underneath
> > the fs seems to require some extra justification and it seems to require
> > some very low-level modifications. and yet the file interface provides
> > w
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 17:13 -0500, Nathaniel W Filardo wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:51:47PM -0800, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote:
> > since replica requires some (albeit automatic) periodic work on the
> > server end it means that there's one more thing for bell lab folks
> > to care about and m
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:51:47PM -0800, Roman V. Shaposhnik wrote:
> since replica requires some (albeit automatic) periodic work on the
> server end it means that there's one more thing for bell lab folks
> to care about and maintain. that said, a brand new Venti proxy or
> what not will probabl
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 04:32:18PM -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> i'm still not following why replica won't work? getting in underneath
> the fs seems to require some extra justification and it seems to require
> some very low-level modifications. and yet the file interface provides
> what i thin
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:55 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > > i'm still not following why replica won't work? getting in underneath
> > > the fs seems to require some extra justification and it seems to require
> > > some very low-level modifications. and yet the file interface provides
> > > wh
> > i'm still not following why replica won't work? getting in underneath
> > the fs seems to require some extra justification and it seems to require
> > some very low-level modifications. and yet the file interface provides
> > what i think one would need for such a project. what is wrong with
On Tue, 2009-02-10 at 16:32 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > I again propose that sources should be mirrorable via venti (and venti/copy
> > -f); the nightly snapshots would be walked with "auth/none vac" into a
> > publically readable venti (venti/ro proxy) and the scores published (and
> > signed
> I again propose that sources should be mirrorable via venti (and venti/copy
> -f); the nightly snapshots would be walked with "auth/none vac" into a
> publically readable venti (venti/ro proxy) and the scores published (and
> signed). In order to make this more palatable, it may be worth develop
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 01:15:11PM -0800, ron minnich wrote:
> On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Barham wrote:
> >> I've turned it back on and will watch to see if our web server gets
> >> swamped by it. This interface should not be used to mirror the
> >> contents of sources.
> >
> > What in
On Tue, Feb 10, 2009 at 1:10 PM, John Barham wrote:
>> I've turned it back on and will watch to see if our web server gets
>> swamped by it. This interface should not be used to mirror the
>> contents of sources.
>
> What interface should be used to used to mirror sources? 9fs?
> replica? More
> I've turned it back on and will watch to see if our web server gets
> swamped by it. This interface should not be used to mirror the
> contents of sources.
What interface should be used to used to mirror sources? 9fs?
replica? More specifically, if I wanted to set up my own HTTP mirror
of sou
Thank you geoff. You are one of the good guys. And I've never heard you whine.
Now, back to work for brucee and Tiger.
brucee
On Wed, Feb 11, 2009 at 5:49 AM, wrote:
> I've turned it back on and will watch to see if our web server gets
> swamped by it. This interface should not be used to mir
I've turned it back on and will watch to see if our web server gets
swamped by it. This interface should not be used to mirror the
contents of sources.
32 matches
Mail list logo
