From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] silly replica question (repeated m msgs won't go away) Message-ID: <20040210143845.N17981@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <597ffdd9b7799e931a08e4658420c643@collyer.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Charles Forsyth on Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:22:28PM +0000 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 14:38:45 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: dc8dca0a-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 12:22:28PM +0000, Charles Forsyth wrote: > > i think the replica scheme is actually quite pretty, > but there's a flaw that happens to afflict 'm' particularly. > Replica is extremely useful, specially in the role it serves to most of this community. Its minor flaws are sufficiently trivial to be ignored and workarounds applied as the occasion demands. But replication deserves being done "right" rather than heuristically and Plan 9 seems to have all the ingredients to provide the final word in replication. Further, as I mentioned in another thread, replication enhances the "distributability" and Plan 9 can only benefit from such an ugly word. If I'm right that the dump (in its ISO-9660 guise) and replica can converge and provide the ideal tool, then I'm willing to make myself unpopular and challenge the present replica wisdom. With all due respect, of course, to those who first trod this path. If I'm being stupid, then I won't mind acknowledging it once my nose has been rubbed in it. ++L