On Wednesday 18 February 2009 08:44:51 pm Brian Warner wrote: > True, but the reason our MDMF plans are different (storing the full/deltas > in the file object, rather than the directory) is to allow someone to share > a single mutable file, without sharing the directory that contains it.
Mmm, that's not an issue with what I was suggesting. What I was thinking of was a sort of a dirnode variant that would only contain revisions of a single file. In some sense it "is" the file; it just doesn't actually contain any of the content except by reference. > Also, one design for a versioned file (mutable or immutable) would be to > have a "master file" which contains a list of immutable filecaps, some of > which point to full versions, others which point to deltas, and the master > would have instructions on how to reassemble the pieces Yes, this is what I was referring to. > (the simplest form > wouldn't even use deltas, just full versions). But we don't plan to do it > that way. The reason we're thinking of revlog-ish for LDMF instead is the > segmentation problem: the reliability/availability drops sharply when the > overall file is composed of many separate immutable files. This is true. I plan to force full versions periodically, in order to limit the risk of a large number of versions becoming unavailable due to the loss of one immutable file. Shawn. _______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@allmydata.org http://allmydata.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev