From 7e1779d48c5ef9a90b60a409286f9830c76eb8ae Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Matthew Hodgson Date: Tue, 11 Nov 2014 20:49:03 +0200 Subject: [PATCH] this is ancient and has been moved to matrix-doc/drafts/federated_versioning_design_notes.rst --- docs/server-server/versioning.rst | 11 ----------- 1 file changed, 11 deletions(-) delete mode 100644 docs/server-server/versioning.rst diff --git a/docs/server-server/versioning.rst b/docs/server-server/versioning.rst deleted file mode 100644 index ffda60633f..0000000000 --- a/docs/server-server/versioning.rst +++ /dev/null @@ -1,11 +0,0 @@ -Versioning is, like, hard for backfilling backwards because of the number of Home Servers involved. - -The way we solve this is by doing versioning as an acyclic directed graph of PDUs. For backfilling purposes, this is done on a per context basis. -When we send a PDU we include all PDUs that have been received for that context that hasn't been subsequently listed in a later PDU. The trivial case is a simple list of PDUs, e.g. A <- B <- C. However, if two servers send out a PDU at the same to, both B and C would point at A - a later PDU would then list both B and C. - -Problems with opaque version strings: - - How do you do clustering without mandating that a cluster can only have one transaction in flight to a given remote home server at a time. - If you have multiple transactions sent at once, then you might drop one transaction, receive another with a version that is later than the dropped transaction and which point ARGH WE LOST A TRANSACTION. - - How do you do backfilling? A version string defines a point in a stream w.r.t. a single home server, not a point in the context. - -We only need to store the ends of the directed graph, we DO NOT need to do the whole one table of nodes and one of edges.