Michael Dale wrote:
I think
thumbnail and transformation servers (they should also do
stuff like rotating things on demand) are separate from how we store
things, and will just be acting on behalf of the user anyway. So they
don't introduce new requirements to image storage. Anybody see
anything problematic about that?
I think managing storage of procedural derivative assets differently
than original files is pretty important. Probably one of the core
features of a Wikimedia Storage system.
Yes, I think we should treat them as different "image clusters",
optionally sharing servers (unless there's a better equivalent available
in the dfs).
Assuming finite storage it would be nice to specify we
don't care as
much if we lose thumbnails vs losing original assets. For example when
doing 3rd party backups or "dumps"we don't need all the derivatives to
be included.
We don't' need need to keep random resolutions derivatives of old
revisions of assets around for ever, likewise improvements to SVG
rasterization or improvements to transcoding software would mean
"expiring" derivatives
A good point.