Re: Plans for 1.8+ (2.0?)

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

5ce$0$833$415eb37d@crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org> <45C2415D.9080702@netphreax.net>
In-Reply-To: <45C2415D.9080702@netphreax.net>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 65
Message-ID: <45c25390$0$833$415eb37d@crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 75.75.22.166
X-Trace: 1170363281 crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org 833 75.75.22.166
Xref: crater_reader.dragonflybsd.org dragonfly.kernel:10546

Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
> Bill Hacker wrote:
>> Thomas E. Spanjaard wrote:
>>> Stilyan Tsenov wrote:
>>>> I can't uderstand whether snapshots are filesystems or files ?...or
>>>> just both possible ?
>>> A snapshot of a filesystem needs support from the filesystem to be 
>>> snapshottable, e.g. temporary suspension of all activities on that 
>>> filesystem while the snapshot-taking is in-progress.
>> .. except for Plan 9, where the 'snapshot' was basically a byproduct 
>> of the way updates were done - i.e. change (and date) only what HAD 
>> changed, preserve all else - even if no longer 'valid'.
> 
> That sounds like a transactional filesystem with versioning :).
> 
> Cheers,

In a way, yes.

Definitely worth a read, [1] as it is surprisingly efficient of storage over 
long-term (previous citation), given the level of snapshot granularity provided.

I have installed a Plan 9 variant - 'Inferno' [2] under OS X.  Works OK, but I 
have not done much with it - least of all with the 'native' fs'en. It supposedly 
plays pretty well with other OS'en.

I'd like to set up a couple of spare servers to use with various *BSD 'flavors' 
- OS X included as a long-lived 'universal' remote storage test [3].

Can share those (have a rack in a data center with decent b/w) if anyone wants 
to make a sub-project out of it.

The 1U units, save one in need of rebuild, are modest Via C3 for low-power 
cosumption, so no great shakes at a make world cycle. That said, they are 'due' 
for migration from 4.11 FreeBSD to DFLY, as I don't see FreeBSD 6.X being as 
efficient on 'austere' uni processor servers.

For myself, trying to finish renovating a house in Virginia, sell out and move 
to Asturias, so I have more spare server capacity than time this year.

Sort of a 'side issue' to DFLY, so an OFF LIST reply would probably be more 
appropriate until I/we have something to contribute back to the main line.

Bill

[1]

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/documentation/index.html

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Setting_up_Venti/index.html

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Setting_up_Fossil/index.html

http://plan9.bell-labs.com/wiki/plan9/Mirroring_with_Fossil_and_Venti/index.html

[2]

http://www.vitanuova.com/inferno/index.html

[3]

How soon we forget how many times we have had to 'migrate' files we wished to 
keep, and how much of a hassle it often was. CP/M -> DRDOS > OS/2 -> the *BSD's 
here. Life is *slightly* simpler since I always install OS X with ufs-only fs, 
not hfs, so at least naming is common with other *BSD's.