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: <20040210172831.S17981@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20040210143845.N17981@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from David Presotto on Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:00:21AM -0500 Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2004 17:28:32 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: dccb20c6-eacc-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Tue, Feb 10, 2004 at 10:00:21AM -0500, David Presotto wrote: > > On Tue Feb 10 07:39:37 EST 2004, lucio@proxima.alt.za wrote: > > But replication deserves being done "right" rather than heuristically > > Describe right a little more. I do really mean that in the grey area between exact and heuristically adequate, I'd like to be closer to exact. My opinion is that replica has weaknesses that diminish the "faith" factor whereas "dump" certainly doesn't or doesn't seem to. What might be a different approach would be to provide a measurement of the uncertainty in replica, but somehow I can't help believing that there is a better paradigm implicit in dump9660 that can be exploited instead. Does the above help? "Right" as in as accurate as produced by the dump9660 procedure just ahead of generating the new release. For all I know this is already the case and it's the baseline that triggers replica errors, but that needs proof. Sorry if I seem to be pontificating, as I mentioned it's a half formed idea and I'm looking to give it a little more solidity. If it's preferable to continue this in private mail, please don't hesitate to point it out. ++L