From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Lucio De Re To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] hardware support for the fs kernel Message-ID: <20030312122847.I24866@cackle.proxima.alt.za> References: <20030312120128.F24866@cackle.proxima.alt.za> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii In-Reply-To: ; from Geoff Collyer on Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:12:55AM -0800 Date: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 12:28:48 +0200 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7ed8589a-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 On Wed, Mar 12, 2003 at 02:12:55AM -0800, Geoff Collyer wrote: > > The pre-fossil file server isn't entirely obsolete yet. If one wants > automated, unattended dumps to optical storage, the old file server is > still a good choice, and that's why I'm using it. > Fossil/Venti won't serve my 2ed and 3ed museums :-) I like the 3.5ed server, pity longnames are incompatible with the disk structures. Maybe my question should have used "obsolescent" rather than "obsolete". > I'm considering what it would take to make the jukebox code and > possibly the cached-worm code, in some form, fit sensibly into a cpu > server with venti and fossil on it. Possibly an ordinary big disk in > front of the jukebox using a mirror device would be enough to supplant > the cached-worm code. The whole idea of "removable" media needs a re-think, it seems to me. It is too convenient to disregard, but fits badly into existing paradigms. Mind you, decent cacheing, effectively replication, would solve a lot of problems. There's something about Venti that hints at clever replication, but I can't quite fathom what, I like to think that the key really lies there. ++L