On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 12:24 PM, Ben Reser <b...@reser.org> wrote:
> On 12/11/13 9:47 AM, Les Mikesell wrote:
>> Within reasonable limits it doesn't cost anything more to send more
>> network traffic. But the cost of client disks scales up by the
>> number of clients. Sometimes you can get by mounting a network disk
>> into all the clients, but then performance suffers, especially with
>> windows clients.
>
> Network traffic has scaling costs just like storage space.
Not exactly. Network traffic is generally bursty. Clients rarely
spend 100% of their time checking out files, so a very large number
could share a local network even if they always deleted their
workspaces and checked out fresh copies. But when storing the
pristine copies, they can't share anything - even if you map a shared
network volume you don't want to share the workspaces.
> If we'd made the
> decision to not store pristines and you had to go to the server for pristine
> copies then the discussion here would be reversed. Someone would be asking
> why
> we don't just store pristines and pointing out how disk space is cheap
> compared
> to the cost of converting their entire network to have more capacity.
Sure - if you aren't local or the server is overloaded it is nice to
have the pristine copies.
> Can't
> make everyone happy all the time.
Well, that's why programs have options - all situations are not the same...
--
Les Mikesell
lesmikes...@gmail.com
