From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: erik quanstrom 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