On 08 Mar 2022, Daniel Shahaf wrote:
Karl Fogel wrote on Mon, Mar 07, 2022 at 13:44:03 -0600:
And in the absence of fancy cross-network common-prefix
detection code that
we're not going to write, this would just be cost-shifting
anyway. Whatever
commit-time improvement one would gain from having the pristine
locally
would be offset by the extra time spent fetching the pristine
to make that
commit-time improvement possible.
What assumptions is this conclusion valid under? It seems to
this
conclusion assumes, at least, that the uplink and downlink
bandwidths
are equal and that the pristine will be needed exactly once
(i.e.,
a hydrate-commit-dehydrate sequence).
I was assuming up and down speeds are roughly the same, yes.
Hmm, I don't see where I was assuming that the pristine would be
needed exactly once, though. Once the user has a local pristine
(by whatever means), if she wants to keep that local pristine
after committing its corresponding working file, then she could do
so or not do so, depending on whether she wants to continue paying
the local storage cost for it.
Best regards,
-Karl
