Yeah I see no problem with moving it into the Standalone section.<br><br><b><i>Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc@googlemail.com></i></b> wrote:<blockquote class="replbq" style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(16, 16, 255); margin-left: 5px; padding-left: 5px;"> MW wrote:<br>> I think Stefan is talking more about the general discussion on keeping <br>> standalone mode vs just having Grid mode that we talked about about a <br>> month ago. And the most common agreement was to aim to refactor the <br>> interfaces and classes so they shared more between the standalone dlls <br>> and grid mode dlls. And then have config options to set what dlls would <br>> be used.<br><br>I certainly don't disagree with this general aim as it's common sense, but often one has to move one step at a time.<br>> <br>> As I said in the email I wrote a few minutes ago, I think the local vs <br>> grid wasn't ever really there for having local assest when running in <br>> grid
mode but rather it was there to be able to use a asset server when <br>> running in standalone mode. And I think that use case is still valid. I <br>> think we should be able to have a standalone mode where it uses both <br>> external asset and inventory server.<br><br>In that case, would it be okay to move the asset_database paramter from [Startup] into [Standalone]? This would mean <br>it's still possible to use an asset service that isn't the standalone one in standalone mode, but would remove the <br>confusion of using local assets in grid mode.<br><br>> <br>> */Justin Clark-Casey <jjustincc@googlemail.com>/* wrote:<br>> <br>> Stefan Andersson wrote:<br>> > I believe the general concensus was to support all three (four?)<br>> asset<br>> > server configs (internal, local, grid, hg(?)) but refactor the<br>> code paths.<br>> <br>> Could you give a mailing list reference to this consensus<br>>
discussion? I don't remember seeing it but it may have been<br>> before my time (which means it was more than a year ago).<br>> <br>> Local mode has never made much sense to me, so I would like to see<br>> some of the arguments for it.<br>> <br>> ><br>> > While I do understand the confusion, I have already shown how we<br>> could<br>> > re-arrange the services so that we get a uniform set of interfaces -<br>> > ideally, the config option should turn from specifying a mode to<br>> > specifying a module and its config.<br>> ><br>> > Best regards,<br>> > Stefan Andersson<br>> > Tribal Media AB<br>> ><br>> > > Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2009 22:29:18 +0000<br>> > > From: melanie@t-data.com<br>> > > To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] asset_database = "local"
or "grid"?<br>> > ><br>> > > Hi,<br>> > ><br>> > > funny you would suggest that. That is one of the code paths I<br>> > > suggested removing a long time ago, and was booed and rejected.<br>> > ><br>> > > Melanie<br>> > ><br>> > ><br>> > > Justin Clark-Casey wrote:<br>> > > > Chris Hart wrote:<br>> > > >> Setting asset_database to "local" will store your assets in<br>> a .db<br>> > sqlite<br>> > > >> database on your file system, and not in MySQL at all. If<br>> you run in<br>> > > >> grid mode, you should always set this to "grid" to avoid<br>> confusion<br>> > > >> unless you are connecting to someone else's grid and want your<br>> > assets to<br>> > > >> be stored locally and
not on their asset server.<br>> > > >><br>> > > >> I have to say I made that same mistake when first starting<br>> out with<br>> > > >> opensim and had to migrate all my assets over to my database<br>> server.<br>> > > >> Several others have made the same mistake and I've had to<br>> help them to<br>> > > >> migrate their assets too - is the local storage model really<br>> that<br>> > widely<br>> > > >> used? Should it actually be the default? For standalone I'm<br>> > guessing it<br>> > > >> is ignored(?), but in grid mode I've found it just causes<br>> pain and<br>> > > >> confusion.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Chris is right - I find the asset_database switch annoying<br>> because<br>> > it catches me out on
occasion.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > The problem with using local assets on a grid is one of grid<br>> asset<br>> > blakanization - people coming to your region can't<br>> > > > see your assets (because their requests go to the grid asset<br>> > service rather than your local asset store) and when you go<br>> > > > to other people's regions you can't rez objects you created<br>> on your<br>> > local region.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > But it strikes me that now, if you wanted to retain your regions<br>> > assets locally, you could set up your region as a<br>> > > > hypergrid enabled region, as Hypergrid regions use the local<br>> asset<br>> > store (there is conceptually no global).<br>> > > ><br>> > > > In view of this, I'd like to completely remove
the<br>> asset_database<br>> > option. This would mean that in standalone and<br>> > > > hypergrid modes, the db used would always be local and in<br>> grid mode<br>> > the grid asset service would always be used.<br>> > > ><br>> > > > Are there any objections to this?<br>> > > ><br>> > > >><br>> > > >> Chris / Strawberry Fride<br>> > > >><br>> > > >> -----Original Message-----<br>> > > >> From: opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > >> [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of<br>> Ai Austin<br>> > > >> Sent: 01 February 2009 17:12<br>> > > >> To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > >> Subject: [Opensim-dev] asset_database = "local" or "grid"?<br>> >
> >><br>> > > >> I have MySQL running on the same system that the UGAIM<br>> servers are<br>> > > >> running on at the moment, though we want to separate some of<br>> them<br>> > out...<br>> > > >><br>> > > >> I am wondering if I set asset_database = "grid" rather than<br>> > > >> asset_database = "local" is there any performance penalty...<br>> or will<br>> > > >> it run identically if the assets are in fact local anyway?<br>> > > >><br>> > > >> _______________________________________________<br>> > > >> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> > > >> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br>> > > >><br>> > > >> No virus found in
this incoming message.<br>> > > >> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com<br>> > > >> Version: 8.0.233 / Virus Database: 270.10.16/1926 - Release<br>> Date:<br>> > > >> 01/30/09 17:31:00<br>> > > >> _______________________________________________<br>> > > >> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> > > >> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > >> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br>> > > >><br>> > > ><br>> > > ><br>> > > _______________________________________________<br>> > > Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> > > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br>> ><br>> ><br>> ><br>>
------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> ><br>> > _______________________________________________<br>> > Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> > Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br>> <br>> <br>> -- <br>> justincc<br>> Justin Clark-Casey<br>> http://justincc.wordpress.com<br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br>> <br>> <br>> <br>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>> <br>> _______________________________________________<br>> Opensim-dev mailing list<br>> Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br><br><br>--
<br>justincc<br>Justin Clark-Casey<br>http://justincc.wordpress.com<br>_______________________________________________<br>Opensim-dev mailing list<br>Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de<br>https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev<br></jjustincc@googlemail.com></blockquote><br><p>