Re: Minimal storage

On Thursday 24 June 2004 13:42, Dario Lopez-Kästen wrote:
> hello,
>
> what is the status of Minimal storage in directory storage?
>
> I am looking for a storage that is not rambased that will be usefull for
> storing semi-transient data, like sessioning data and cache information.

It rocks. I regularly use it in this manner when I use a ZODB as a cache for 
big computations. setting sync=0 and turn off md5 checking in the config file 
makes it faster than Filestorage for sizes above a few megabytes. 

[There is an experimental DirectoryStorage.Full packing implementation that 
uses DirectoryStorage.Minimal. It creates a new storage, uses it during the 
packing process to store the per-file mark/sweep bits, then "rm -rf" the 
minimal storage directory at the end. That method would be the default today, 
except for ZODB leaking memory when a database is closed.]

> Is Minimal still being supported?

It hasnt been actively maintained for a while, because the no-history design 
is inconsistent with Full's main goal of robustness. DirectoryStorage.Minimal 
doesnt have a consistency-checking tool, or replication. I would recommend 
against using it for anything that needs long-term data durability, although 
that clearly isnt a requirement for you. As for support....  I dont have the 
same commitment to supporting Minimal, because Im not using personally for 
any important production systems. Having said that, Minimal.py is only about 
50 lines of code, so I dont anticipate any problems.

I hope that helps.

-- 
Toby Dickenson


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.Net email sponsored by Black Hat Briefings & Training.
Attend Black Hat Briefings & Training, Las Vegas July 24-29 - 
digital self defense, top technical experts, no vendor pitches, 
unmatched networking opportunities. Visit www.blackhat.com