On Tue, 2009-01-06 at 11:19 -0500, erik quanstrom wrote: > very interesting post.
indeed. I actually need some time to digest it ;-) > > this is an example of the design decision difference between > > fossil/venti and zfs: venti commits storage permanently and everything > > becomes a snapshot, while the designers of zfs decided to create a > > two-stage process introducing a read-only intermediary between the > > original data and a read-write access to it independent of other > > clients. > > 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. > > i don't see a solution to this problem: the unix world is committed to > > nfs and a bit less so to iscsi. i'm more of a 9p guy myself though, so > > i listed it as a complaint. > > oh, my perfect chance to shill aoe! how to configure aoe on plan 9 > echo bind /net/ether0>/dev/aoe/ctl > now for the hard part > # (this space intentionally left blank.) ;-) What's your personal experience on aoe vs. iscsi? Thanks, Roman.
