From mboxrd@z Thu Jan  1 00:00:00 1970
From: ron minnich <rminnich@lanl.gov>
To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu
Subject: Re: [9fans] Archiving appliance
In-Reply-To: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110853220.13208-100000@fbsd.cpsc.ucalgary.ca>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0307110915300.22296-100000@maxroach.lanl.gov>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Date: Fri, 11 Jul 2003 09:16:30 -0600
Topicbox-Message-UUID: f6187782-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025

On Fri, 11 Jul 2003, andrey mirtchovski wrote:

> - replace NetApp with Fossil/Venti. it really sounds like a good idea. a
>   fossil/venti combination gives you exactly the same thing as a NetApp, but
>   it has the archival option (dumps), and no NFS as a bonus. (how about
>   speed?)

netapp has snapshots however.

>   cons: you need to teach your client applications to speak 9p

er ...

>   cons: quite a bit. teaching NetApp to talk 9p may be quite the task. you
>   still have NFS.

esp. as netapp will say market share for 9p servers is approx 0.0%

>   cons: you still have to deal with NFS, and Plan 9 does not a good NFS
>   server make, I've heard.