On 08/08/15 00:07, Lukas Pirl wrote: > On 08/06/2015 10:56 PM, Adam Hunt wrote: >> Something that I've been wondering since then is the complexity >> introduced by mutable files. In a few use cases that I've been thinking >> about mutability is unnecessary and potentially even a liability. How >> much complexity is introduced into Tahoe's design to allow for mutabile >> files? If mutability was eliminated from an implementation of a system >> based on Tahoe's design would the system become appreciably less complex? > > That raises a question in my head: when mutable files are mutated, are > the existing shares updated or are new shares created?
The existing shares are updated. > And what happens to the servers holding shares that cannot be > [successfully] updated? Those shares are not updated. This is why updates to mutable files can potentially cause data loss. > I ask because the garbage collection in Tahoe is a point where I see a > lot of room for improvement. Yes (I'll discuss this in another reply). -- Daira Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list [email protected] https://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
