Re: [9fans] Replica - just a thought.

[Lucio De Re <lucio@proxima.alt.za>]

On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 01:00:32PM +0100, Fco.J.Ballesteros wrote:
>
> > To me the benefit lies in the ditraibution
> > format, file-level dump instructions, if such things can be
> > represented.
>
> But I love to "9fs sources" and then "diff" or
> whatever wrt the exact thing I'm pulling from.
>
My problem, which my solution may not address at all, is that I
don't have enough faith in the replica process.  When it reports
"locally modified" during a pull to a pristine previous distribution
I feel that much of its purpose is being defeated.

I also greatly appreciated sources and specially sourcesdump.  What
I'm suggesting is that we replace replica with the equivalent of
a remote dump.  As you point out, there is a need for a "release"
base, the clever approach is to be able to identify the base point
instead of dictating it, assuming such a thing is feasible.  It
is, by default, in the "dump".

> Although agree that for some with connection problems
> or w/o a Plan 9 already working, it's handly to have a CD
> at hand. Wait!, I think even in the last case I'd prefer to
> boot as a term from a kind soul's machine :-)

That's Plan 9 at its most powerful and is quite irresistible.  But
I believe Plan 9 can deliver reliable replication without imitating
Microsoft and in my opinion that fits well with the dump/Venti
model for extending distributed processing even beyond the boundaries
of decent bandwidth, like here in Africa.

To put all my card on the table, I'm looking to replicate my mailbox
because my network is at the far end of a low-reliability link and
when it fails there is no one to restart it, yet that's where my
Fossil/Venti server resides.  Replication is preferable to mapping
the two endpoints to the same, frequently inaccessible file service.

++L