Re: [9fans] [reminder] pointer to Plan 9 FAQ

[Richard <greon@best.com>]

jmk@plan9.bell-labs.com writes:

>I'm not sure what you're getting at here. Are you saying that other systems
>have ways to prevent you from losing your data without copying it somewhere
>else?

It is my understanding that kfs has received much less testing than the
dedicated fileserver and indeed the other filesystems that a home user
might be accustomed to.  one can imagine slow or subtle forms of data
corruption that escape notice till it has spread to all the backup copies
assuming the usual practice of keeping around 3 to 5 backup copies.

It is my understanding that the main reason for this lack of testing
is that having a nice dedicated fileserver, Bell Labs has little need
for kfs.

If you are saying that kfs is tested enough or indeed you and your peers
at Bell Labs have stared at the code long enough to convince yourself
that it has a very very low probability of corrupting data in ways that
can escape user notice, then I withdraw my suggestion.

(And maybe it would have been better if I had asked a question rather than
made a suggestion.)