On Mar 23, 2013, at 10:38 AM, Arturo Servin <[email protected]> wrote:
<snip> > This would help to move a problematic CA out of the monolithic repo. > However, this would make a cache to create multiple rsync sessions to > retrieve objects and lowering its performance (according to Rob's > measurements with RIPE NCC repo). Isn't it? Just to make a general observation: I'm a little worried that this is a case of the tail wagging the dog… The issue that Chris seems to be raising (at least, to me) is one of scale and resilience… It seems to me that our efforts to optimize _rsync's_ performance at all costs is starting to require us to relax our security and stability concerns. At a high level, I think that actually points to rsync as a suboptimal component. Regardless of the transport used, Chris' comments seem sound to me, and I haven't seem too many comments that rebuff his general concerns. The fact that rsync doesn't fit well into the model of securing repositories while still making them lively enough for caches is worrisome to me. I would think that it ought to suggest something other than relaxing our security and stability concerns… Just my 0.02… Eric _______________________________________________ sidr mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/sidr
