superlifter design notes and rZync feedback
bescoto at stanford.edu
Thu Jul 18 19:49:02 EST 2002
>>>>> "WD" == Wayne Davison <wayned at users.sourceforge.net>
>>>>> 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
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.
More information about the rsync