Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

["Stilyan Tsenov" <naylits@xxxxxxxxx>]

I can't uderstand whether snapshots are filesystems or files ?...or
just both possible ?

2007/2/1, c.turner <c.turner@199technologies.org>:
> 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
> >