Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version Vortex 1.0 6/6/83; site vortex.UUCP Path: utzoo!linus!decvax!vortex!lauren From: Lauren Weinstein Newsgroups: net.news,net.bugs.uucp Subject: UUCP local file naming Message-ID: <94@vortex.UUCP> Date: Sun, 7-Aug-83 03:20:25 EDT Article-I.D.: vortex.94 Posted: Sun Aug 7 03:20:25 1983 Date-Received: Mon, 8-Aug-83 01:31:06 EDT Organization: Vortex Technology, Los Angeles Lines: 44 Greetings. As long as UUCP queue filename "collision" risk is minimized, I don't see the need for significant restrictions on the filenames that a site uses for the storage of UUCP D. files *locally*. The names that they send to a remote site, of course, must meet the "standard" requirements. Nonetheless, it is true that certain local naming schemes could increase the risk of collision significantly, and we can assume Murphy's Law will ensure that a "1 in a million" collision will occur within three hours of installing new code. Given this latter consideration, I will agree that my new naming scheme could possibly cause a local collision problem in some cases. Since this code has the potential for being fairly widely used in the near future, it seems prudent for me to deal with the issue now. One solution is to go back to the "older" naming scheme, where all outgoing files are names with the "local" sitename. However, as I've stated before, I consider this to be undesirable since it can make routine manual queue inspection somewhat painful. Another possibility is to combine the previous "solution" with the concept of having separate subdirectories for each site (some systems currently use separate subdirs for at least the "high volume" sites on their system). However, I do not consider this appropriate except where very high traffic volumes are being encountered. Having lots of small subdirectories can also cause queue inspection to be a hassle, especially when many sites, with relatively low traffic for each site, is the pattern of usage. There is another solution, of course, that sits squarely in the middle, and it's the path that I'm now going to take (unless someone can point out a really good reason why I shouldn't...) There's no good excuse why incoming D. files cannot be kept separate from outgoing D. files. Therefore, I am altering my local naming scheme to use the subdirectories: C. X. D.in D.out This technique will allow me to use my previously announced local file naming scheme without any risk of name collision, and with a minimal change in the overall directory structure. --Lauren-- {decvax,ihnp4,harpo,allegra,ucbvax!lbl-csam,randvax}!vortex!lauren