<html>
<head>
<style>
.hmmessage P
{
margin:0px;
padding:0px
}
body.hmmessage
{
font-size: 10pt;
font-family:Verdana
}
</style>
</head>
<body class='hmmessage'>
First step would probably be to implement the sha-based binary store that you bring up and that we've discussed earlier, so that the immutables at least share the same binary data row. Right now, I believe we're seing massive duplication when people export/import content between worlds. Storing the binaries separately by sha key would probably be an low hanging fruit.<BR><BR>
I would say that it's probably very much up to the service (aka 'the grid') how assets should be managed. On an grid that employs a consumer/producer division (like a fantasy game) you could probably reap dead assets quite aggressively. In a SL business model, it becomes harder, as they have to ensure consistent user experience in a heterogenous environment.<BR>
<BR>
Best regards,<BR>Stefan Andersson<BR>Tribal Media AB<BR><BR>
> Date: Sun, 14 Dec 2008 14:48:01 +0900<BR>> From: mmazur@gmail.com<BR>> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> Subject: [Opensim-dev] Always mutable assets in OpenSim -- does it make sense?<BR>> <BR>> Hi,<BR>> <BR>> Melanie's recent thread[1] on updating assets prompted me to put in<BR>> writing some thoughts on this topic I've been having.<BR>> <BR>> I'm curious whether it may be beneficial to make assets mutable. AFAIK<BR>> assets are currently immutable because of a LL decisions early on to<BR>> re-use one asset instance for very popular items sold no-modify. This<BR>> makes sense for them because they can:<BR>> <BR>> * clean up unused assets since they own the entire infrastructure<BR>> (regions & DBs)<BR>> * save on space because they anticipate more identical copies rather<BR>> than slightly modified copies<BR>> <BR>> Perhaps taking the opposite approach in OpenSim would be a better fit?<BR>> I mean, copying assets when they are transferred between owners, and<BR>> modifying them if they are modified in-world. I can see a few reasons<BR>> this might be beneficial:<BR>> <BR>> * OpenSim's databases are distributed so cleaning them (reaping dead<BR>> assets) is more difficult<BR>> * with the advent of distributed asset servers and the long-term<BR>> vision of a wide open 3D Internet (like HyperGrid), when an item is<BR>> transferred in-world its assets should probably be stored in that<BR>> avatar's own inventory DB *anyway*<BR>> * disk is cheap, and I wonder which is more wasteful -- multiple<BR>> copies of an asset, each differing slightly due to minor edits over<BR>> time, or multiple copies of identical assets because they correspond<BR>> to different objects in-world<BR>> <BR>> I see this as a cleaner approach to assets for the future. Sure,<BR>> storing duplicate identical assets in a DB can be wasteful, but this<BR>> could be alleviated with hashes of the asset or whatnot (I believe<BR>> this was brought up on this list before).<BR>> <BR>> I realize this change would mean deep, possibly breaking, changes<BR>> throughout the source code, would take a long time to hash out, etc. I<BR>> thought I'd throw it out there anyway.<BR>> <BR>> Your thoughts -- or perhaps clarifications on why this absolutely<BR>> cannot be done -- appreciated :)<BR>> <BR>> Thanks,<BR>> Mike<BR>> <BR>> [1] https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2008-December/004025.html<BR>> _______________________________________________<BR>> Opensim-dev mailing list<BR>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<BR>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<BR><BR></body>
</html>