From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Apr 2011 07:13:59 -0400
To: 9fans@9fans.net
Message-ID: <63d88c3d38162974e6c68ebc13f86f8d@ladd.quanstro.net>
In-Reply-To: <201104240344.27289.errno@cox.net>
References: <201104240344.27289.errno@cox.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] kfs and cwfs comparison
Topicbox-Message-UUID: d314c8fc-ead6-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> 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.

- erik