Re: roadmap question

On Saturday 16 October 2004 04:01 am, Toby Dickenson wrote:
> On Friday 15 Oct 2004 07:04, Ken Gunderson wrote:
> > Greets:
> >
> > Been a couple beta versions since 1.1.9 was declared stable.  Any
> > general idea of when a 1.1.1x might become so designated?  Not
> > trying to rush the development, just curious.
>
> Normally releases carry the 'beta' stamp until I have tested them on
> my production servers. This hasnt happened so far because:
> a. There are no known bugs in 1.1.9
> b. Ive been working on non-zope non-zodb projects for a while, so
> there hasnt really been any non-critical maintenance of my production
> servers.

Ditto the working on non-zope, non-zodb projects for a while....  Last I 
was working with them, I set up a standalone zodb/zeo config using 
DirStorage 1.1.9, patched for the snapshot path.

> But yes, it is overdue. Thanks for the nudge.

Yer' welcome;-)  Wasn't so much a nudge though, but rather curiosity 
whether I should upgrade config above to 1.1.12 if it was going to be 
designated stable near term.

> On the broader topic of DirectoryStorage roadmap, the development
> rate has slowed significantly over the last year. The last major
> development was the addition of replication in version 1.1. There are
> several outstanding items on the todo list
> http://cvs.sourceforge.net/viewcvs.py/dirstorage/DirectoryStorage/doc
>/todo?rev=1.29 that, at the current development pace, are unlikely to
> get any attention for the forseeable future. None of those items are
> sufficiently interesting to my employer (who sponsored replication)
> or any other previous sponsors to justify spending any time.
>
> I would be interested in feedback from the user community on this
> subject. Anything not on the list that should be? Are any of those
> outstanding todo items a critical omission? Any interest in a
> commercial (open source, or not) implementation of any of those
> items?

I think the packing related stuff may warrant some additional 
development.  Anything that would increase read/write performance would 
also be desireable, especially if non Linux specific, sd I run a mix of 
OpenBSD, FreeBSD4.x and FreeBSD5.x machines.  FBSD5.x uses UFS2, so 
anything to facilitate tuning for UFS2 would be appreciated.  Broadly 
useful as well becuase there's a LOT of FBSD servers out there.  The 
web enabled checkds.py; would be nice, but not essential.  There are 
other means of enforcing quotas, at least on *nix, so I don't see them 
as high on my personal list of wants.

The most important thing on my list would be knowing that DirStorage was 
going to be around long term, at least w.r.t. maintainance releases, 
e.g. support for zodb3.3??

I initially began exploring alternate storages becuase of issues I saw 
people having problems with filestorage, both w.r.t. stability and 
size.  At first bdbstorage caught my attention as I had experience with 
it as backend for Cyrus and it worked quite well.  Alas, Zope dropped 
support due to lack of interest, which led me to DirStorage.  The 
robustness, stability, and scalability advantages justified the slower 
performance trade offs, at least in my mind.

That was then, this is now, however, and I understand filestorage has 
subsequently been much improved, at least according to some.  I would 
be interested on feedback from others on this.

I'm also curious as to whether, with the advent of APE going stable,  
sql backends are becoming somewhat the defacto standard.

Probably ought to ask some of these questions elsewhere, but hey, I'm 
already subscribed here;-)

-- 
Best regards,

Ken Gunderson
GPG Key-- 9F5179FD

"Freedom begins between the ears."      -- Edward Abbey


-------------------------------------------------------
This SF.net email is sponsored by: IT Product Guide on ITManagersJournal
Use IT products in your business? Tell us what you think of them. Give us
Your Opinions, Get Free ThinkGeek Gift Certificates! Click to find out more
http://productguide.itmanagersjournal.com/guidepromo.tmpl