From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.92]:59393) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQG4O-0001qu-56 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:53:05 -0400 Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQG4N-0000Qw-6Y for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:53:04 -0400 Received: from debbugs.gnu.org ([209.51.188.43]:60868) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1hQG4M-0000Qi-H0 for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:53:03 -0400 Received: from Debian-debbugs by debbugs.gnu.org with local (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1hQG4M-0008D1-6L for guix-patches@gnu.org; Mon, 13 May 2019 14:53:02 -0400 Subject: [bug#33899] [PATCH 0/5] Distributing substitutes over IPFS References: <20181228231205.8068-1-ludo@gnu.org> In-Reply-To: <20181228231205.8068-1-ludo@gnu.org> Resent-Message-ID: Mime-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <5e3fb8d9-1a83-4031-ab02-c4e10e2be1ea@www.fastmail.com> Date: Mon, 13 May 2019 14:51:42 -0400 From: "Alex Griffin" Content-Type: text/plain List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guix-patches-bounces+kyle=kyleam.com@gnu.org Sender: "Guix-patches" To: 33899@debbugs.gnu.org Do I understand correctly that the only reason you don't just store nar files is for deduplication? Reading [this page][1] suggests to me that you might be overthinking it. IPFS already uses a content-driven chunking algorithm that might provide good enough deduplication on its own. It also looks like you can use your own chunker, so a future improvement could be implementing a custom chunker that makes sure to split nar files at the file boundaries within them. [1]: https://github.com/ipfs/archives -- Alex Griffin