Recently, fossil was removed from the source tree of /sys/src/cmd. What do you find defective of it? Venti is still there... I think the historical defeat of fossil was solved by Richard's patch? Kenji
Before anyone suggests removing venti, too: it works flawlessly if you give it less than a few GiB of RAM on 9front, and I have patches improving that up to 5.3G. It definitely needs replacement in the long run, but it remains a valuable tool which I use daily. That said, I think readding fossil would probably require porting improvements from Mycroft's ANTS, and wouldn't be exactly trivial, but might be worthwhile. I suspect venti+fossil would be more reliable than cwfs or hjfs. - Noam Preil
On Fri, Mar 26, 2021 at 08:31:41AM +0900, kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp wrote: > Recently, fossil was removed from the source tree of /sys/src/cmd. > What do you find defective of it? > Venti is still there... Fossil's removal from 9front is not recent. > I think the historical defeat of fossil was solved by Richard's patch? There have been several claims, over the years, of having fixed fossil. Some of them may even have been true. I don't think 9front should resurrect it; if someone wants to run a fossil server they are probably better off using ANTS or 9legacy or something. khm
I have run fossil 24x7 since 2004, i can attest to it being solid and reliable. there was a bug in the snapshot code (not dumps but ephemeral snapshots) but this was fixed years ago. there is an issue where it can fail badly if the file system fills up - but this has never happened to me as i run fossil with venti. i would say fossil+venti is can be slow, but large ram caches help considerably. i have never tried hjfs or cwfs, i can only say i am happy with fossil and venti. -Steve
mycroftiv has fixes for fossil/venti that also work on 9front, it's
just that nobody has stepped up to provide this in mainline 9front or
support it (and accept the responsibility).
i prefer this over dumping it in and then generating all kinds of bug
reports from users.
even having 2 default filesystems is one too many IMO and adding a
third option just makes it worse. having more options is not always
better, especially not with something so centrally important as your
central file server.
On 3/26/21, Steve Simon <steve@quintile.net> wrote:
>
> I have run fossil 24x7 since 2004,
> i can attest to it being solid and reliable.
>
> there was a bug in the snapshot code (not dumps but ephemeral snapshots) but
> this was fixed years ago.
>
> there is an issue where it can fail badly if the file system fills up - but
> this has never happened to me as i run fossil with venti.
>
> i would say fossil+venti is can be slow, but large ram caches help
> considerably.
>
> i have never tried hjfs or cwfs, i can only say i am happy with fossil and
> venti.
>
> -Steve
>
>
>
Out of curiosity, how big are your ram caches?
Not that big, I have a 1Gbyte for Venti and 1Gbyte for fossil, I cannot remember the exact split, I followed some advice from russ when I first set it up. There are some details in the appendix to this doc: http://www.quintile.net/papers/venti-rescue.pdf I wrote this years ago when I had some disks fail. My plan9 server was in the attic at the time and I fitted some extra cooling fans as it gets very hot in the summer. In the winter the disks go so cold they failed, hence the need for rescue. These days I have ssds which are less vunerable to the weather. -Steve