Subject: [Storagesync] Fw: Re: Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1

From: "Fei Song" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 7 Dec 2015 09:33:13 +0800

Yes, Is it one of the reasons why you like distributed mode (comparing with C/S mode)? :)
I agree that the evaluation of Etags should depond on the situation (frequent changes, Sync conflicts, etc.)
And the burdens in both network side and server sides should be consider simultaneously.

Fei Song

From: Ted Lemon
Date: 2015-12-07 02:26
To: storagesync
Subject: Re: [Storagesync] Storagesync Digest, Vol 5, Issue 1

Etags are not really much simpler than a metadata versioning sync protocol, and they are a lot less efficient.   Having to fetch the whole directory for every directory that contains a change is expensive, both for the server and the client, unless changes are infrequent.   And because the server is the sole source of truth, it's a lot more fragile.

--
Sent from Whiteout Mail - https://whiteout.io

My PGP key: https://keys.whiteout.io/[email-masked]

_______________________________________________
Storagesync mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/storagesync