Re: [9fans] Fossil disk usage over 100%?

[erik quanstrom <quanstro@quanstro.net>]

On Sun Jun  2 17:59:16 EDT 2013, 23hiro@gmail.com wrote:
> > dedicate a machine to the file server.
>
> This must be the best way to keep the plebeian hands off the artwork:
> museums that are only open to curators.
> This certainly also provided for my technical contribution to this mailing list.

it's odd to interpert this as a restriction when i believe this is a common
technique, even among people with single-user systems.

the reason for this technique is that if one dedicates a machine (or vm)
to the file server, than one can be sure that punting the cpu server will
leave one's files available and bugs in the cpu server won't leak over.

at home, this is very helpful as sometimes the man cpu/auth server gets
confused.  dns is a common reason.  it's good to be able to reboot the
cpu server without interrupting my terminal.  running out of memory
or procs also has no effect on the fs.  it is tautology to say that
i have access to the file server.

a side benefit is this technique scales to very large systems.  at work we
run a file server(per location) that supports 40+ cpu/terminal machines and many
users.  in this case direct access to the file server is restricted to those
reponsible for keeping it running.  the seperate file server allows a
policy that many folks can fix the dns server without becoming responsible
for any file server issues.

> >> > my guess is that it's a mutated gene.
> > but was probably abused as a child.
>
> This is unhelpful. I wouldn't even go as far as calling Kurt a troll.
> You are just hurling off boring insults whereas he was pointing out
> the sad truth in a joking thus diplomatic manner - subsequently

sorry, what point was he making?  i saw a clearly false claim unsupported
by evidence or anecdote that fossil is not stable.  but that's not making
a point.

- erik