2017-07-26 17:38 GMT+02:00 Matt Ryan :
> Hi Arek,
>
>
>> Regarding CompositeBlobStore -- what if customer changes the storage
>> rules in the meantime (refers also to Curation section). This will
>> result in the new layout for writes but binaries won't be read
>> correctly, am I
Hi,
2017-07-26 17:33 GMT+02:00 Matt Ryan :
>
>> If you could configure priority for read in the following order: {FBS,
>> S3DS} but for writes in inverse order {S3DS, FBS} then this will
>> almost satisfy any DataStore migration scenarios (except the need to
>> transfer content
2017-07-26 11:02 GMT+02:00 Arek Kita <kitarek+...@gmail.com>:
> S3DataStore ---> AmazonDataStore
oops, should be: S3DataStore ---> AzureDataStore
Hi Matt,
In the wiki there is no precise IMHO statement about write:
> The overlay blob store fulfills write requests by attempting to write to each
> delegate in priority order. Once a write is successfully satisfied by a
> delegate, the result of the delegate write is returned as the result
Hi Matt,
2017-06-01 1:03 GMT+02:00 Matt Ryan :
> I'm curious as to the status of this. Is it being worked on?
>
Please excuse me a bit late response to that topic. Unfortunately I'm
not working *actively* on this anymore at least for now but I'm happy
to help and contribute.
Hi,
I've noticed recently that with many different NodeStore
implementation (Segment, Document, Multiplexing) but also DataStore
implementation (File, S3, Azure) and some composite ones like
(Hierarchical, Federated - that was already mentioned in [0]) it
becomes more and more difficult to set up
Hi,
I have a problem with Mongo [0]. It causes timeouts. This might be due
to MongoDB is not present at all (inaccessible) or there are rather a
connectivity issues.
How I can check and fine tune mongo connection parameters? I've
reviewed Oak documentation [1] and codebase [2,3] but I haven't
Hi Amit,
On 15/03/2017, 10:29, "amit@gmail.com on behalf of Amit Jain"
wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> There is a new contribution for azure blob storage support - OAK-4933.
> This introduces a new module oak-blob-cloud-azure. This certainly seems to
>
Hi,
On 10/02/17 10:09, "Francesco Mari" wrote:
> As much as I like the proposal of slimming down oak-run, I think that
> dividing oak-run in oak-operations and oak-development is the wrong
> way to go. This kind of division is horizontal, since commands
> pertaining to