From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Message-ID: To: 9fans@cse.psu.edu Subject: Re: [9fans] Fossil; is the time right? From: rog@vitanuova.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Fri, 14 Mar 2003 13:39:50 +0000 Topicbox-Message-UUID: 801c0f58-eacb-11e9-9e20-41e7f4b1d025 it's been stable for me... for all of two days, running it on my laptop :-). it's survived lots of rebooting, and kernel crashing, with no probs, as advertised. it seems quite a lot slower than kfs (a naive measurement showed that it read 15MB 50% slower than kfs). presumably this will change if it gets a read cache. i have one query about its integrity: soft updates preserve the integrity of the write buffer; venti is log structured, and has no problem with being killed. however, i wonder if it's possible to "lose" a block in between fossil and venti if one is running venti -w. e.g. fossil writes a block to venti, marks it as archived, reuses that block, and then the machine crashes before venti has got around to actually writing the block. how does fossil guard against such an eventuality? cheers, rog.