From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: Fans of the OS Plan 9 from Bell Labs <9fans@9fans.net>
In-reply-to: Your message of "Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:15:09 PDT."
	<CAP6exYLmZXLCgBsczjR5e87B095R231WLp3hi0VZOtxgmBd5kw@mail.gmail.com>
References: <20110810220404.D6021B827@mail.bitblocks.com>
	<d12d73be7c53043c2f37dc79d947a424@orthanc.ca>
	<CAP6exY+7NvTrL8O+z7J8RH=0wXTb+zY2xTQVLRSGSQbxqbRaBA@mail.gmail.com>
	<CAP6exYLmZXLCgBsczjR5e87B095R231WLp3hi0VZOtxgmBd5kw@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 11 Aug 2011 12:54:27 -0700
From: Bakul Shah <bakul@bitblocks.com>
Message-Id: <20110811195427.CAF8FB827@mail.bitblocks.com>
Subject: Re: [9fans] simple venti demo:
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 0fb3710a-ead7-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:15:09 PDT ron minnich <rminnich@gmail.com>  wrote:
>
> Note a difference between lucho and me: I ignore vtsync (I always sync
> on writes) and he properly pays attention to it. Question for the
> student: which one is better? Why?

Pay attention to vtsync?  May be not for your mythical multiTB
ramflash but in real life syncing on every write is expensive.

[As I see it] in a sense venti has an atomic `changeset'
concept (each changeset maps to a single "fingerprint").  A
partial changeset is of not much use.