<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=windows-1252"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">Le 27/10/2016 à 19:00, Aaron Ogle a
écrit :<br>
</div>
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAGX5j1wwmYNdGAEY8z21=cu5ifuzZsqKr48EOcPx_MPMdJviYw@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Thu, Oct 27, 2016 at 11:56 AM Kyle Fazzari
<<a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="mailto:kyle.fazzari@canonical.com">kyle.fazzari@canonical.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="gmail_msg">
<div class="m_7125054579255483489moz-cite-prefix
gmail_msg"><br>
</div>
</div>
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000" class="gmail_msg"> So
are you storing this database in $SNAP_COMMON? Because
$SNAP_DATA would do this for you, no?</div>
</blockquote>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Correct we are doing in $SNAP_COMMON. Is $SNAP_DATA
using CoW? Or is it going to be a full copy. From what I
could see it was a full copy. This would quickly add up.
Not to mention you loose all of our messages sent when you
roll back.</div>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
I would suggest to use $SNAP_DATA. Once we have garbage collection
enabled on snapd, you will have approx. 2 copies at most of your
data (the old version and the current one). I guess this is a
reasonable tradeoff to ensure you can always revert safely.<br>
<br>
Imagine the case if a new version corrupts your data. You will not
have any way to retrieve them back if you store in $SNAP_COMMON,
whichever downgrade scripts you are writing…<br>
<br>
So, I would argue to try $SNAP_DATA first, and then only revisit to
move to $SNAP_COMMON if you see that doesn't suit you.<br>
Making sense?<br>
Didier <br>
<br>
</body>
</html>