From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from mx02.posteo.de ([89.146.194.165]) by ttr; Mon Aug 25 04:32:51 EDT 2014 Received: from localhost (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mx02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTP id 496E422B47C4 for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:32:10 +0200 (CEST) X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at posteo.de Received: from posteo.de ([10.125.125.178]) (using TLS) by localhost (amavis1.posteo.de [10.125.125.165]) (amavisd-new, port 10026) with ESMTPS id 6p2CVZJUKgDl for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:32:08 +0200 (CEST) Received: from mail.posteo.de (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by mail.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 492362C0115 for <9front@9front.org>; Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:32:07 +0200 (CEST) MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Date: Mon, 25 Aug 2014 10:32:07 +0200 From: dante To: <9front@9front.org> Subject: Re: [9front] cwfs and hjfs Organization: styx In-Reply-To: References: Message-ID: List-ID: <9front.9front.org> X-Glyph: ➈ X-Bullshit: secure proven injection STM TOR markup-scale database software X-Sender: subscriptions@posteo.eu User-Agent: Posteo Webmail Hi, In my opinion, you should use the stable cwfs. I don't think it is a good idea to confront new users (that need to learn the system first) with an experimental file system. I tried hjfs as a newbie myself and only had problems and lacked the knowledge to debug it so I moved on to stock Plan9. What a deterrent! Cheers, Dante On 25.08.2014 05:33, kokamoto@hera.eonet.ne.jp wrote: > I made cinap's 9pi SD, and found it was built > for hjfs. > > Is the /dev/sdM0/fs is compatible, if I use cwfs > on the same media? > > I know I'd be better to help t0 debug the experimental > hjfs. However, I want to confine my effort to another now, > therefore I'd like to use cwfs also on 9pif, because it > is much faster than hjfs in my environment (micro SD card). > > Kenji