On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:32:43PM +0900, Stephen J. Turnbull wrote:
> That's the deal with hoard, I should think: it's been left in a state
> where it more or less works, but it's not at all polished, yet.
 
Agreed.
 
I tried hard to make hoard work for me but it did not scale to the amount
of files to be hoarded. My conclusion (having talked to Jan)
was and still is that hoard has to be redesigned to be generally usable.
 
A workaround since then has been to have large caches
(as large as rvm can bear) and hope that no vital file will be pushed out
of the cache.
 
The biggest problem with hoard was that it insists on revalidating files
(keeps rvm in RAM and my link busy)
when all I need is to pin down the files in the cache so that I do not
loose them. I do _not_ want hoard to trigger revalidations.
When I really care, I run "find".
So, my needs are different from the hoard design purpose, but I guess
there is a point in satisfying the needs like mine as well, may be even more
than to keep the "academically clean" hoard consistency model?..
 
Regards,
Rune