On 01/21/2015 08:16 PM, Rabid Mutant wrote:
Does S3QL really need 1 file handle per cache entry?
In principle, no. The way it's currently programmed, yes.
The reason I ask is: I would like to have a cache that matched the full
file system size (ie a complete local copy); if I could do this then I
could use rsync to compare files and update only the new & changed files
without any unnecessary network I/O. It would also allow for the
possibility of offline use.
rsync by default uses file name, modification time, and size to check if
a file has changed, so it won't incur any network IO apart from what's
necessary to transfer new and changed files.
This changes if you use the -c option, but I'd be rather curious why
you'd need that.
I guess that this leads to the secondary question(s) is(are): have I
misinterpreted the was S3QL works, and is there a better way to do
minimal I/O sync, and to support an offline mode?
S3QL is meant to store its data remotely. The easiest way to get an
"offline" mode is to explicitly store a local copy of all the data and
periodically sync it to the S3QL fs.
E.g., put all your data in /mnt/offline, mount s3ql at /mnt/s3ql, and
run an rsync job to synchronize /mnt/s3ql with /mnt/offline every once
in a while. As long as you access only /mnt/offline, this will give you
what you want.
Best,
-Nikolaus
--
GPG encrypted emails preferred. Key id: 0xD113FCAC3C4E599F
Fingerprint: ED31 791B 2C5C 1613 AF38 8B8A D113 FCAC 3C4E 599F
»Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"s3ql" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
