From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2014 15:10:34 -0400 To: 9fans@9fans.net Message-ID: In-Reply-To: <20140717190129.81607B827@mail.bitblocks.com> References: <2cd3d3a808e9d61fc89f920f0954745f@eonet.ne.jp> <1cd7faec083da0c4468343b048db7ddc@ladd.quanstro.net> <33E5CFC9-B6F3-49F4-90F6-2674A96745CE@bitblocks.com> <20140717190129.81607B827@mail.bitblocks.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] file server speed Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0516c984-ead9-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 > So long as a server returns a block corresponding to its SHA1 > score, you (the client) don't care whether it is the same > server you wrote the original block to or another (and you can > always verify the returned block). This opens up some but this isn't unique to content-addressed storage. as long as the block contents are the same, normal block storage can be served from anywhere. > interesting choices. For instance, you can multicast each read > or write or you can set up a hierarchy of servers and switch > to another one (or even get different blocks from different > instances). How the writes are handled/replicated.stored is > entirely upto the server (cluster). Or you can implement a > bittorrent like facility on top of venti (I call it bitventi > or b20). why not distributed hashing? distributed hashes have existing fast implementations. venti does not. - erik