> Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other? > > In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding > which of the two are more appropriate for any given new > installation/deployment? (let's assume that kfs's 28-character filename > limit isn't an issue, and that there's no concern for supporting legacy fs > formats) > > Additionally, under what conditions/circumstances might either of those > two be a more suitable/optimal alternative to, say, fossil?
in my experience, both are more robust in the face of unexpected outages than fossil. ken fs/cwfs also provides a dump file system (that is, history) without the need to run venti. - erik
