Re: ...and a question (SHA1 UUIDs)

From: Bron Gondwana (no email)
Date: Wed Sep 05 2007 - 20:26:14 EDT

  • Next message: Bron Gondwana: "Re: squatter problem"

    On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:02:00PM -0400, Ken Murchison wrote:
    > David Carter wrote:
    >> All from:
    >> sha1_uuid_replace.patch
    >> -----------------------
    >> Throw away the existing UUID apparatus (in particular the environment
    >> value CYRUS_UUID_PREFIX used to pass state from master to imapd and
    >> lmtpd). Replace it with simple 20 byte UUIDs which are the message SHA1.
    >> Any existing UUIDs are reset to NIL. I suppose that it would be possible
    >> to pad the existing 12 byte UUIDs to 20 bytes: the chance of a collision
    >> is remote.
    > I'm beginning to sift through this patch in an effort to implement what we
    > had discussed privately. Some initial questions:
    > - Do we still need the "uuid_mode" option in imap.conf?


    > - Can I assume that any mention of "provide_uuid" in the documentation can
    > be removed?

    Yes, I believe so. All the UUID infrastructure between master and child
    processes can be ripped out.

    I guess there's still some value in having a "turn UUIDs off" config
    option to allow people who don't want the CPU overhead of calculating
    sha1 values to avoid it. Unless we're planning to simplify the
    replication system as well by absolutely demanding that UUIDs are
    calculated on all messages. I can see arguments for both sides, so
    I guess it's down to an executive decision!


  • Next message: Bron Gondwana: "Re: squatter problem"

    Hosted Email Solutions

    Invaluement Anti-Spam DNSBLs

    Powered By FreeBSD   Powered By FreeBSD