From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Mon,  2 Feb 2009 14:33:30 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <6b717654d8c0155e4b21c59db140f205@proxima.alt.za>
To: lucio@proxima.alt.za,
	Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1233614010.4412.412.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <6b717654d8c0155e4b21c59db140f205@proxima.alt.za>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Sources Gone?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 92a8fa74-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Fri, 2009-01-30 at 07:18 +0200, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote:
> > Some level of smartness in how block traversal is made needs to
> > be there.
>
> That involves partitioning, which defeats the fundamental mechanics of
> venti.

I don't think it does. At least not in a way that is obvious to me.
The one and only fundamental limitation of the current interface
offered by venti is that I can give it a score to something that
doesn't belong to me and it gives me the information back. It is
the limitation of the API, not the way data is managed. IOW, if
a block that I genuinely own happens to also be referenced from
a hierarchy that I do NOT have access to -- its ok.

> It then becomes preferable to run distinct venti services,
> which is the only way in which different backing stores can be used at
> this stage.

Hm. I guess I need to understand what is the problem you seem to
be worried about.

Thanks,
Roman.