Michael Dale wrote: >> I think thumbnail and transformation servers (they should also do >> stuff like rotating things on demand) are separate from how we store >> things, and will just be acting on behalf of the user anyway. So they >> don't introduce new requirements to image storage. Anybody see >> anything problematic about that? > > I think managing storage of procedural derivative assets differently > than original files is pretty important. Probably one of the core > features of a Wikimedia Storage system.
Yes, I think we should treat them as different "image clusters", optionally sharing servers (unless there's a better equivalent available in the dfs). > Assuming finite storage it would be nice to specify we don't care as > much if we lose thumbnails vs losing original assets. For example when > doing 3rd party backups or "dumps"we don't need all the derivatives to > be included. > > We don't' need need to keep random resolutions derivatives of old > revisions of assets around for ever, likewise improvements to SVG > rasterization or improvements to transcoding software would mean > "expiring" derivatives A good point. _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
