From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 MIME-version: 1.0 Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Content-type: text/plain Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2009 14:17:24 -0800 From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" In-reply-to: <20090210221303.GN22259@masters6.cs.jhu.edu> To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net> Message-id: <1234304244.4957.158.camel@goose.sun.com> References: <1234302707.4957.127.camel@goose.sun.com> <20090210221303.GN22259@masters6.cs.jhu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] source browsing via http is back Topicbox-Message-UUID: 9ded1f00-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 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 maintain. that said, a brand new Venti proxy or > > what not will probably be even worse for them :-( > > Under the proposed scheme, clients and maybe mirrors, not sources, run the > new proxy. Sources runs only a venti and venti/ro, unmodified, to allow > clients and mirrors to fetch blocks, and auth/none vac. Is this unreasonable? It would be completely reasonable (and I wager *less* work for bell labs folks than keeping an eye on replica) if that venti was only hosting blocks coming from sources. As far as I know that's not the case. Thanks, Roman.