From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <72ef27ac28f1d89f3bbd285b277ee706@hamnavoe.com>
To: 9fans@9fans.net
From: Richard Miller <9fans@hamnavoe.com>
Date: Tue,  4 Jun 2013 10:23:05 +0100
In-Reply-To: <49961808-9D22-4E6F-8196-B29EF4FBD412@9srv.net>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Fossil disk usage over 100%?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 6302619e-ead8-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

Long-haul airlines can appear to have better safety statistics than
local services, because they spend proportionately more flying hours
in a straight-and-level steady state than in takeoff and landing where
most accidents occur.  Similarly someone who has used fossil as a
production system over the years to support their real work will have
a different subjective view of its reliability than someone with only
the frustrating experience of repeated experimental installs, maybe on
pushing-the-boundaries hardware or VMs that nobody else has tried,
maybe not getting the initial config quite right (it's tricky) or
trying to load it up with more files than it can hold before taking
the first venti snapshot.

That's my last word on the subject, except to say: any time someone
reports a data-corrupting fossil bug to the list, with enough factual
detail that it can be replicated, I'll do my best to fix it.  I enjoy
a bit of a challenge :)