From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
Message-ID: <87b90d8b1794b7b63737e9b0815d1288@quanstro.net>
From: erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>
Date: Tue, 20 Jan 2009 18:36:45 -0500
To: 9fans@9fans.net
In-Reply-To: <1232490633.11686.26.camel@goose.sun.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Subject: Re: [9fans] Changelogs & Patches?
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 836d580c-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025

> > > Got it. However, I'm still not fully convinced there's a definite edge
> > > one way or the other. Don't get me wrong: I'm not trying to defend
> > > ZFS (I don't think it needs defending, anyway) but rather I'm trying
> > > to test my mental model of how both work.
> >
> > if you end up rewriting a free block in zfs, there sure is.  you
> > can't decide which one is correct.
>
> You don't have to "decide". You get use generation # for that.
>

what generation number?  are there other things that your argument
depends on that you haven't mentioned yet?

> > not true.  one of many score checks:
> >
> > srv/lump.c:103: 				seterr(EStrange, "lookuplump returned bad score %V not %V", u->score, score);
>
> I don't buy this argument for a simple reason: here's a very
> easy example that proves my point:
>
> term% fossil/fossil -f /tmp/fossil.bin
> fsys: dialing venti at net!$venti!venti
> warning: connecting to venti: Connection refused

well, there's your problem.  you corrupted
the cache, not the venti store.  (you have no
venti store in this example.)

i should have been more clear that venti does the
checking.  there are many things that fossil doesn't
do that it should.

- erik