[RC5] If you were writing our next client, what would you put in it?

Christopher Hicks chicks at chicks.net
Tue Apr 27 16:06:29 EDT 1999


On Tue, 27 Apr 1999 CompuPC1 at aol.com wrote:
> I would like to see some kind of system of primary and secondary buffer 
> files.

HAY!  That got me thinking.  Why not make the buffers directories?  If a
block is being worked on it is moved from 'undone' to 'working' so it
doesn't ever get lost accidentally.  Progress for a given block should be
written to it's file in 'working'.  Once it's done with a block it puts it
in a 'done' directory.  Each block has a unique number so making filename
shouldn't be hard.  Each project could have it's own tree.  Something
like:
dnetc---+-rc5--+--undone
	|      |
	|      +--working
	|      |
	|      +--done
	|
	+-ogr--+--undone
	|      |
	|      +--working
	|      |
	|      +--done
	|
	+-des--+--undone
	.      |
	.      +--working
	.      |
	.      +--done

The advantages of this I see:
 - Fewer blocks permanently lost because blocks are always stored on disk
somewhere.  And you could backup the directories with little worry.
 - Easier to implement sharing.  (If you can't create working/12345678.dat
then you don't delete the undone/12345678.blk and you try a different
block.)
 - For those people who are sneakernetting, it'd be really easy to write a
script to move all the done blocks to a floppy and put some new blocks in
undone.
 - The working/* files could be use as checkpoint files.

It'd also be nice to be able to resubmit a block if it was determined that
wasn't successfully submitted for whatever reason.  Of course, this could
be a mess if some jerk wanted to resubmit lots of stuff that was already.

-- 
</chris>

If trees could scream, would we be so cavalier about cutting them
down?  We might, if they screamed all the time, for no good reason.

--
To unsubscribe, send 'unsubscribe rc5' to majordomo at lists.distributed.net
rc5-digest subscribers replace rc5 with rc5-digest



More information about the rc5 mailing list