Re: Cost was Re: FTP Service Discontinuance Under Consideration; Input Requested

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



>The FTP server we are using (proftpd) places restrictions on how we
>store files in the file sytem that are much more constraining than
>the http and rsync daemons. Essentially, the files to be served must
>be stored in a single tree (as hardlinks - symlinks won't work).
>This is impeding work as we evolve. In particular, it affects how we
>separate services to take advantage of cloud architectures.  Other
>servers have different limits, but still place significant
>constraints on what we can do. Since the information is already
>available through other mechanisms (particularly rsync), the folks
>studying the problem recommended discontinuing the service, rather
>than investing in finding the least onerous deamon and reconfiguring
>to it.

Surely you could leave a FTP server whose copies of the files
are just pulled out of the cloud server and put the right proftpd form,
and now you can continue to offer legacy ftp access for the cases
where there are old ftp: URLs. 

Then you can reconfigure your CDN multi-homed redundant cloud
services as much as you want, and not risk making more IETF
URLs uncool because you don’t think URL stability is important
enough.

I don’t see how doing this would “impede work” or affect how
you plan to separate services (you know, by separating the
ftp server) or place any significant constraints on what you
can do (except please don’t break http: URLs either).

Larry
—
http://larry.masinter.net








[Index of Archives]     [IETF Annoucements]     [IETF]     [IP Storage]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux SCTP]     [Linux Newbies]     [Fedora Users]