Re: [9fans] kfs and cwfs comparison

[errno <errno@cox.net>]

On Sunday, April 24, 2011 04:13:59 AM erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other?
> >
> > In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding
> > which of the two are more appropriate for any given new
> > installation/deployment? (let's assume that kfs's 28-character filename
> > limit isn't an issue, and that there's no concern for supporting legacy
> > fs formats)
> >
> > Additionally, under what conditions/circumstances might either of those
> > two be a more suitable/optimal alternative to, say, fossil?
>
> in my experience, both are more robust in the face of unexpected outages
> than fossil.
>
> ken fs/cwfs also provides a dump file system (that is, history) without the
> need to run venti.
>

Thanks for the info - couple more questions, if you don't mind:

How about in terms of resources/overhead - is kfs more appropriate in
constrained/embedded devices than cwfs?

Or maintainability? Are kfs and cwfs both relatively equal in terms of
maintenance and/or disaster recovery?

Are kfs and cwfs equally dependable/stable?

Finally, what about the difference between a terminal and auth/cpu/fileserver -
would kfs/cwfs be more or less appropriate for a terminal vs. a server?

I'm curious, because I'm about to do another plan9 install after a pretty
long hiatus; and this time I'd like to switch filesystems (fossil/venti
distracted from my plan9 learning curve a bit last time) - I'd just like to
get some extra info that's not in the man pages, so that I can make a
more informed decision.