From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] lucio-
In-Reply-To: <a1jqcp$mhs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>
References: <20020109050805.9394F19A70@mail.cse.psu.edu>
	<20020109073250.H12098@cackle.proxima.alt.za>
	<a1jqcp$mhs$1@spacebar.ucc.usyd.edu.au>
From: Richard Uhtenwoldt <ru@river.org>
Message-Id: <E16hzmo-0000WS-00@po>
Date: Mon,  4 Mar 2002 13:14:22 -0800
Topicbox-Message-UUID: 5f404cf0-eaca-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

I'm responding to an old message.

on Jan 10, Bruce Janson wrote:

>Two of the limitations of dump are its coarse granularity and its
>arbitrary timing.  To eliminate these one could extend dump by
>allowing anybody to force (and annotate) a dump snapshot.

I believe that the current implementation of dump snapshotting
bogs down the fileserver so it would be annoying to run it
when people are doing work and that is why dump snapshotting
runs in the wee hours at Bell Labs.

(Of course, it could be redone if that was deemed valuable.)