From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@9fans.net From: erik quanstrom Date: Tue, 6 Jan 2009 18:44:31 -0500 In-Reply-To: <1231284215.5141.81.camel@goose.sun.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Subject: Re: [9fans] Changelogs & Patches? Topicbox-Message-UUID: 7b256d7e-ead4-11e9-9d60-3106f5b1d025 >> a big difference between the decisions is in data integrety. >> it's much easier to break a fs that rewrites than it is a >> worm-based fs. > > True. But there's a grey area here: an FS that *never* rewrites > live blocks, but can reclaim dead ones. That's essentially > what ZFS does. unfortunately, i would think that can result in data loss since i can can no longer take a set of copies of the fs {fs_0, ... fs_n} and create a new copy with all the data possibly recovered by picking a set "good" blocks from the fs_i, since i can make a block dead by removing the file using it and i can make it live again by writing a new file. perhaps i've misinterpreted what you are saying? > What's your personal experience on aoe vs. iscsi? i have no iscsi experience. aoe has been pretty fun to work with. the spec can be read in half an hour. (it's maybe ten pages.) i implemented a virtual aoe target for plan 9, vblade, from scratch on a friday evening. - erik