Re: [9fans] Upspin - a respin of 9p?

[Ryan Gonzalez <rymg19@gmail.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 2493 bytes --]

https://upspin.googlesource.com/upspin/

*looks at mascot*

Eh, Glenda's cuter. This looks like a sleep-deprived crack-addicted mobster
chick.

--
Ryan (ライアン)
Yoko Shimomura > ryo (supercell/EGOIST) > Hiroyuki Sawano >> everyone else
http://refi64.com

On Feb 23, 2017 2:30 AM, "Bakul Shah" <bakul@bitblocks.com> wrote:

> https://upspin.io/doc/overview.md
>
> Upspin provides a global name space to name all your files. Given an
> Upspin name, a file can be shared securely, copied efficiently without
> “download” and “upload”, and accessed from anywhere that has a network
> connection.
> ....
> Upspin can name information from any data service, not just traditional
> files.
> ----
> Initial impression:
>
> IMHO, its usefulness is integrating a bunch of things. A path has a global
> user id (user@foo.com) as a root, which is looked up in (what I would
> call) a root server. From it you find the directory server which stores the
> metadata for the remaining path. From this you find the data server where
> the file or data source is actually located and an ID meaningful to the
> server (like qid but can be a content sha1 sum). The directory server also
> checks if the requester is allowed access and presumably gives her a public
> key of the root user to be able to decrypt the data.
>
> Clearly, if the source is not an ordinary file, there can be no sha1 sum
> -- presumably the directory server doesn't care.
>
> The overview talks about the design being geared toward friends and family
> (ala Dropbox?) but the only thing I see that would be hard to scale is the
> fact a dir tree has an ACL. A dir server may also end up being a bottleneck.
>
> User data can be protected by the owner but the dir server needs to be
> able to read metadata such as ACL, data location etc.
>
> Not sure if the design allows for dynamic bind/mount. This would require a
> more flexible dir server structure... (I haven't read the code so this is
> pure speculation). But I'm wondering if something the CPU command can be
> implemented. May be there is a protocol to attach your own dir server.
>
> Renames are probably not handled to avoid atomicity (just speculating). Or
> may depend on a dir server.
>
> ACLs are for dir trees. From the syntax it looks like you can add more
> access in a sub tree but not remove it.
>
> I'd have preferred a capability scheme instead of ACLs -- need to think
> more about this.
>

[-- Attachment #2: Type: text/html, Size: 3906 bytes --]