From c126c992d66e651118a7038e21088b83a5d20728 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: "http://a-or-b.myopenid.com/" Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2013 05:12:41 +0000 Subject: [PATCH] --- ...erent_annexes_pointing_to_same_special_remote__63__.mdwn | 6 ++++++ 1 file changed, 6 insertions(+) create mode 100644 doc/forum/Different_annexes_pointing_to_same_special_remote__63__.mdwn diff --git a/doc/forum/Different_annexes_pointing_to_same_special_remote__63__.mdwn b/doc/forum/Different_annexes_pointing_to_same_special_remote__63__.mdwn new file mode 100644 index 0000000000..8413a6e08a --- /dev/null +++ b/doc/forum/Different_annexes_pointing_to_same_special_remote__63__.mdwn @@ -0,0 +1,6 @@ +Is there likely to be any problem in pointing different annexes to the same special remote (i.e. rsync/box.com/etc.) ? + +As the objects are stored based on their SHA256 key the expectation is that the chance of collision is is small. + +The only problem I can foresee is where the same content is stored in more than one annex and it is deleted in the remote in one annex, but not the other - there won't be any protection against that, but for non-overlapping content this risk should be negligible. +