Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

["c.turner" <c.turner@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

speaking of 'old' technology that handled snapshots, etc.. 
Anyone have any insight why LFS was abandonded rather than being
updated..

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Log-structured_File_System
+= research papers, etc.




On Thu, 01 Feb 2007 20:48:38 +0800
Bill Hacker <wbh@conducive.org> wrote:

> BUT.. it had a mechanism to insure 'current status' more familiar to
> table, row, record locking schemes of an RDBMS (which ZFS has a
> kinship with).
> 
> Simple hash-based, these were an order or two of magnitude simpler -
> hence faster - than  ZFS could be on the same hardware.
> 
> The consatnt 'snapshot-ing' OTOH, could have placed major strains on
> the paltry storage of the day (for anyone with less funding than AT&T
> anyway).
> 
> That last part has changed.
> 
> With capacity and cost of current HDD, it is probably now faster and
> cheaper to 'abandon in place' a good deal of stale data than to even
> bother to go back and look at it at all - let alone clean it up, make
> decisions as to what to archive, etc.
> 
> Not complex, and certainy worth a look for recyclable ideas. her is
> an analysis of 'in-use' history:
> 
> http://plan9.bell-labs.com/who/seanq/p9trace.html
> 
> Bill
>