From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Msuck: nntp://news.gmane.io/gmane.emacs.gnus.general/84200 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ted Zlatanov Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.gnus.general Subject: Re: Emacs Cloud (coverage and killed groups) Date: Fri, 07 Feb 2014 08:24:16 -0500 Organization: =?utf-8?B?0KLQtdC+0LTQvtGAINCX0LvQsNGC0LDQvdC+0LI=?= @ Cienfuegos Message-ID: <87ppmzawe7.fsf@lifelogs.com> References: <877g9fxwih.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87r47ni1mu.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87k3deo8y0.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87mwiaqzjj.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87txcimrsc.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87ha8impk9.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87eh3mqf4t.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <871tzmm6yz.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87vbwyks3h.fsf@building.gnus.org> <8761oxqvrp.fsf@flea.lifelogs.com> <87ha8hf7ow.fsf@building.gnus.org> <878uttf6bu.fsf@building.gnus.org> <8738k1f586.fsf@building.gnus.org> <87r47klisw.fsf@randomsample.de> <87sis0fieb.fsf@gnu.org> <87ioswkzu7.fsf@randomsample.de> <87a9e7f39n.fsf@lifelogs.com> <878utpysj3.fsf_-_@building.gnus.org> <8738jvljru.fsf@building.gnus.org> Reply-To: ding@gnus.org NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: ger.gmane.org 1391779510 31579 80.91.229.3 (7 Feb 2014 13:25:10 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 7 Feb 2014 13:25:10 +0000 (UTC) To: ding@gnus.org Original-X-From: ding-owner+M32452@lists.math.uh.edu Fri Feb 07 14:25:16 2014 Return-path: Envelope-to: ding-account@gmane.org Original-Received: from util0.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.18]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlQf-0003HK-Ex for ding-account@gmane.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:25:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=lists.math.uh.edu) by util0.math.uh.edu with smtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlQ1-0001ES-Cd; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:24:33 -0600 Original-Received: from mx2.math.uh.edu ([129.7.128.33]) by util0.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES256-SHA:256) (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlPy-0001EC-Iv for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:24:30 -0600 Original-Received: from quimby.gnus.org ([80.91.231.51]) by mx2.math.uh.edu with esmtps (TLSv1:AES128-SHA:128) (Exim 4.76) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlPu-0000yJ-0C for ding@lists.math.uh.edu; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 07:24:30 -0600 Original-Received: from plane.gmane.org ([80.91.229.3]) by quimby.gnus.org with esmtp (Exim 4.80) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlPq-0005f0-LL for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:24:22 +0100 Original-Received: from list by plane.gmane.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1WBlPp-0002cQ-W5 for ding@gnus.org; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:24:21 +0100 Original-Received: from c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net ([98.229.61.72]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:24:21 +0100 Original-Received: from tzz by c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Fri, 07 Feb 2014 14:24:21 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Mail-Followup-To: ding@gnus.org Original-Lines: 47 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@ger.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: c-98-229-61-72.hsd1.ma.comcast.net X-Face: bd.DQ~'29fIs`T_%O%C\g%6jW)yi[zuz6;d4V0`@y-~$#3P_Ng{@m+e4o<4P'#(_GJQ%TT= D}[Ep*b!\e,fBZ'j_+#"Ps?s2!4H2-Y"sx" Mail-Copies-To: never User-Agent: Gnus/5.130008 (Ma Gnus v0.8) Emacs/24.3.50 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:LRfhPq6P2uSWPLDle35OJyfJPO0= X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) List-ID: Precedence: bulk Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.gnus.general:84200 Archived-At: On Thu, 06 Feb 2014 18:49:09 -0800 Lars Ingebrigtsen wrote: LI> I had originally thought of the Cloud stuff being totally symmetrical, LI> but perhaps that's not the best approach here. LI> That is, at home I have a Gnus setup that contains a gazillion servers, LI> and some of them are local, like nnml ones. These obviously shouldn't LI> be replicated to other instances. Fine. LI> But what happens to the topic topology? If we push out newsrc data that LI> contains only these replicated groups initially (and I think that's the LI> right solution), what happens if we move a group from one topic to LI> another in one of the other instances? We can't just do a full new dump LI> of the topology back to the "home" instance, because it no longer LI> contains all the groups... I would have a special "cloud" topic at the top level. Or a "cloudify" per-group property (not per server!) Groups that have "cloudify" are then synchronized, together with their topology position. So the group would know it's under topic G, and if G doesn't exist, it will be created. Changing the topology of a group is a configuration change like any other. Again, this is *per group* so you don't have a global topology map with cloudified groups. I think inverting the gnus-cloud configuration from global-descending-to-local to per-group is key here, but it does complicate the interaction with the Gnus state. LI> So I'm now thinking we have to have a strict division between one "home" LI> instance that contains everything, and that can do full chunk dumps. LI> And then all the other instances would just log updates That's good. But it should simply be a choice of "this instance subscribes to cloudified groups X, Y, and 'gmane.*'" instead of making such special cases. LI> The main problem, though, is that if you're not on your home instance LI> for months, the number of incremental chunks might get pretty ... huge. LI> But that may not actually be much of a problem. Nowadays, probably not. Fast connections are pretty common. Even a 3G connection is quite fast (the lowest network speed I would expect from our user base). Ted