Re: [9fans] venti ports and productization

["Russ Cox" <rsc@swtch.com>]

> that's very interesting. my comment about "why rewrite" wasn't
> intended to necessarily imply it should've been done that way,
> although i realize it probably came off that way. what about
> the current implementation is at issue? and (the big question)
> is it expected that the new stuff will be protocol compatable?

The protocol is almost completely trivial.  There are only two
interesting messages -- read and write.  So ultimately it really
doesn't matter.

We have had problems with Venti since the Seans left,
but I am not convinced that we really need to start over
(perhaps I am the only one!).  We have had some problems
with the big Venti server, but my understanding is that
all of the problems appeared to be disk corruption rather
than software error.  I think the biggest problem is that
before the Seans left they didn't get the system scanning
itself for damage regularly.  Disks are going to fail and
we need to replace them, but we haven't been.  This does
contrast with the WORM, where the platters fail much less
frequently.

Then again, the amount of code involved is so small that
I do think that bulk alone doesn't justify sticking with
the current code if you want to start over.

If I started over, I suspect I would end up writing
substantially the same code, so I don't see the point.

Russ