On Aug 13, 2012, at 11:36 AM, Caitlin Bestler
wrote:
> I'm not sure it's worth the compatibility hassles, but why would periodic
> "Progress" returns that could be translated into a client status bar be
> "useless"?
Sorry, poor choice of word I guess.
___
Followup note: Though briefly mentioned by John, I like to emphasize this also
affects COPY (or PUT with X-Copy-From) requests, and #1 (upping the lb timeout)
is really the only solution unless we go crazy and implement async requests
with status checks. Well, another weird solution is to have S
On Jun 11, 2011, at 11:15 AM, David Nalley wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 10, 2011 at 2:50 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
>>
>> There's a bug report in the Debian BTS [1] against Nova in SID
>> concerning the "st" binary shipped by Swift. Shall we consider renaming
>> the binary "st" to something else?
>>
>>
On Jun 10, 2011, at 1:50 AM, Thomas Goirand wrote:
> There's a bug report in the Debian BTS [1] against Nova in SID
> concerning the "st" binary shipped by Swift. Shall we consider renaming
> the binary "st" to something else? I know that a window manager has
> nothing to do with us, but there mig
Very, very cool!
Just curious, what's the reason for the account, user -> user, account switch
in swift3.py?
On Jun 3, 2011, at 9:25 AM, Akira YOSHIYAMA wrote:
> Hi Stackers,
>
> I'm pleased to announce swauth_novaldap, an auth-n/z driver for Swift
> to use Nova user/profile data in LDAP.
>
>
On Jun 2, 2011, at 12:39 AM, Jorge Williams wrote:
>
> How do you guys feel about the changes-since feature?
> And if it is in the core shouldn't we support it in all of our APIs (images,
> load balancers, etc.)?
I don't think it'd be a good idea for Swift. It would require an additional
inde
On May 31, 2011, at 4:49 PM, Rostyslav Slipetskyy wrote:
> I assume that in this scenario there is only one user/file of huge size and
> all
> the other users/files are much smaller (in other case, there will be not much
> difference in distribution among drives). But the suggested backup/reco
Okay, I give up then. Not sure what's different with what you have vs. Swift
dbs. Just trying to offer up what we do and have been doing for a while now.
On May 25, 2011, at 2:40 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:32 PM, Greg Holt wrote:
>> select w from x where y
e:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:10 PM, Greg Holt wrote:
>> Okay cool. Just stop using the term offset anywhere in your examples then
>> and drop the whole page= thing as well. :)
>
> Sorry, I'm not understanding what you're getting at here. The offset
> is req
Okay cool. Just stop using the term offset anywhere in your examples then and
drop the whole page= thing as well. :)
On May 25, 2011, at 1:28 PM, Jay Pipes wrote:
> I'm not proposing using marker/limit over offset/limit. I'm proposing
> using marker/limit/offset over searching manually through a
Also, using marker/limit rather than offset/limit makes it much easier to shard
for scale if desired. One of the reasons we chose that route with Swift.
Regular databases with indexes work better with marker/limit than offset/limit
too.
On May 25, 2011, at 12:38 PM, Justin Santa Barbara wrote:
[Removed the previous stuff, it was getting messy. And sorry for this long
email, I tried to make it shorter, really.]
Okay, cool. Seems we all thought someone else was managing it so nobody really
was. A few quick points and maybe we can get this all sorted out:
* Most of us (me, chuck, redbo,
On May 6, 2011, at 5:06 AM, Soren Hansen wrote:
> 2011/5/5 Chuck Thier :
>> Hey Soren,
>> We've asked similar questions before :)
>> Ever since the packaging was pulled out of the source tree, we have been
>> mostly out of the packaging loop. Since then most of the packaging details
>> have been
13 matches
Mail list logo
