From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Date: Tue,  6 Jan 2009 15:23:35 -0800
From: "Roman V. Shaposhnik" <rvs@sun.com>
In-reply-to: <129b32f691c934d77d2454071d09a6fd@quanstro.net>
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
Message-id: <1231284215.5141.81.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT
References: <129b32f691c934d77d2454071d09a6fd@quanstro.net>
Subject: Re: [9fans] Changelogs & Patches?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7b18a2c4-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 11:19 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote:
> very interesting post.

indeed. I actually need some time to digest it ;-)

> > this is an example of the design decision difference between
> > fossil/venti and zfs: venti commits storage permanently and everything
> > becomes a snapshot, while the designers of zfs decided to create a
> > two-stage process introducing a read-only intermediary between the
> > original data and a read-write access to it independent of other
> > clients.
>
> a big difference between the decisions is in data integrety.
> it's much easier to break a fs that rewrites than it is a
> worm-based fs.

True. But there's a grey area here: an FS that *never* rewrites
live blocks, but can reclaim dead ones. That's essentially
what ZFS does.

> > i don't see a solution to this problem: the unix world is committed to
> > nfs and a bit less so to iscsi. i'm more of a 9p guy myself though, so
> > i listed it as a complaint.
>
> oh, my perfect chance to shill aoe!  how to configure aoe on plan 9
> 	echo bind /net/ether0>/dev/aoe/ctl
> now for the hard part
> 	# (this space intentionally left blank.)

;-)

What's your personal experience on aoe vs. iscsi?

Thanks,
Roman.