On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 12:32 -0400, Dan Williams wrote: > On Tue, 2007-06-26 at 12:16 -0400, C. Scott Ananian wrote: > > On 6/26/07, Dan Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Downside of this is, as Alex pointed out, it'll load the mesh a _lot_ > > > more than XO->XO updates. > > > > Not necessarily. Rsync is pretty efficient: we're still basically > > distributing just (blockwise) diffs. And we can always do XO-to-XO > > later: the important thing is to get a rock-solid basis. The selling > > point (to me) is the simplicity. Like I said: its the simplest thing > > that works. > > I'm not arguing simplicity; just that we have to be aware of the > implications of having lots of XOs pulling from the server with some > overlap with this method, but we don't with XO->XO. We just have to > make the tradeoffs clear, and understand them. > > Dan > > > I can do some benchmarks if people actually need to see numbers. > > --scott > > >
We Also have to remember the countries want control over when the boxes update. At least that was the impression I got at the country meetings. -- John (J5) Palmieri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
