On Fri, Jul 26, 2002 at 09:03:32AM -0400, Bennett Todd wrote:
2002-07-26-03:37:51 jw schultz:
All that matters is that we can represent the timestamps in
a way that allows consistent comparison, restoration and
transfer.
A very good statement indeed. There are complications, though.
I'm inclined to agree with jw that truthfully representing time and
leap seconds is a problem for the operating system, not for us. We
just need to be able to accurately represent whatever it tells us,
without thinking very much about the meaning.
Somebody previously pointed out that timestamp
2002-07-21-04:12:55 jw schultz:
On Thu, Jul 11, 2002 at 07:06:29PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
6. No arbitrary limits: this is related to scalability.
Filesizes and times should be 64-bit; names should be
arbitrarily long.
File sizes, yes. Times, no. unsigned 32 bit
On 21 Jul 2002, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.From what i can see rsync is very clever. The biggest
problems i see with its inability to scale for large trees,
a little bit of accumulated cruft and featuritis, and
excessively tight integration.
Yes, I think that's basically the
On Mon, Jul 22, 2002 at 02:00:21PM +1000, Martin Pool wrote:
On 21 Jul 2002, jw schultz [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
.From what i can see rsync is very clever. The biggest
problems i see with its inability to scale for large trees,
a little bit of accumulated cruft and featuritis, and
People have proposed network-endianness, ascii fields, etc.
Here's a straw-man proposal on handling this for people to criticize,
ignite, feed to horses, etc. I don't have any specific numbers to
back it up, so take it with a grain of salt. Experiments would be
pretty straightforward.
I've put a cleaned-up version of my design notes up here
http://samba.org/~mbp/superlifter/design-notes.html
It's very early days, but (gentle :-) feedback would be welcome. It
has some comments on Wayne's rzync design, which on the whole looks
pretty clever.
I don't have any worthwhile
