From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Date: Wed, 21 Mar 2007 22:02:36 +0100 From: Martin Neubauer To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@cse.psu.edu> Subject: Re: [9fans] Update on Fossil+Venti Stuff Message-ID: <20070321210235.GA10654@shodan.homeunix.net> References: <9ab217670703211317o1958d9b3u647f6ac4fac758cd@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <9ab217670703211317o1958d9b3u647f6ac4fac758cd@mail.gmail.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.2i Topicbox-Message-UUID: 2b5ba760-ead2-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 Fossil is more like a write _buffer_ for venti. The interaction with venti takes place during the nightly dumps (at 5am for a default install; can be configured according to your needs). Fossil also regularly takes snapshots that aren't archived to venti. (Again, for a default setup snapshots every hour, kept for 8 days; can be configured otherwise.) The snapshots are taken for files that changed since the last snaptime; dumps are taken from files where the current epoch is greater than the last written to venti. Those procedures are quite well documented. The problems seem to arise when you write lots of new data between dumps (more than the fossil size; can be less when taking into account intermediate snapshots). I've been thinking about ways to cope with that lately, but wasn't too eager to post here until I'd actually have time to really delve into it (next month, or so). At the moment those are little more than some elaborations of possibilities already mentioned in the archives. I could do a write-up of what I could think of so far later tonight when I'm back home if there is wider interest in exploring possible enhancements (I'm not thinking of those asfixes) to fossil. I think it could be worthwhile, though. Martin P.S. I'm sure one could describe the current workings in more detail, but I'm too much in a hurry now.