[mythtv-users] Mooting architecture for a DataDirect replacement

Kevin Hulse jedi at mishnet.org
Thu Jun 21 20:11:10 UTC 2007


On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 03:23:13PM -0400, Jay R. Ashworth wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 21, 2007 at 01:47:25PM -0500, Kevin Hulse wrote:
> > > Well, the *real* question is "how far back/forwards" do you need to
> > > go... but remember how Usenet servers *work*.  You can pull, from the
> > 
> > 	Go as far ahead as the data will allow.
> > 
> >         Go as far back as storage and processing make prudent.
> > 
> > 	Applying n+1 differentials to a base copy is just annoying. 
> > There has to be some sane smaller limit that will be set by human
> > convenience more than technical considerations.
> 
> Sure.  But I wasn't talking about "differentials", because they imply a
> "full", and I don't propose that, either.
> 
> Doesn't *anyone* remember Usenet?  :-)

	Yup.

	Big, bulky, inefficient, unwieldy.

> 
> > 	In either case, chunking the data in one week increments would probably
> > make some sense. "full backups" need to be frequent enough that people don't 
> > want to throw sharp objects at you.
> 
> Most people will have their machines on and slurping all the time
> anyway, so I don't see them *needing* "a full dump".

	Most isn't good enough.

> 
> > > Leveraging RFC1036 and NNTP to move blocks of airing data seems to have
> > > quite a number of advantages, operationally.
> > 
> > 	Polices regarding "initial" copies versus "deltas" should be independent
> > of the transport mechanism.
> 
> I don't see that 1036 imposes any policies at all, which the competing
> proposal seem *to*.


More information about the mythtv-users mailing list