Anthony Sorace wrote: > Make sure you're not confusing kfs with Ken's file server, sometimes > (confusingly) called "kenfs". [...] > Ken's file server is extremely solid, and I believe cwfs is comparable > (although I don't have nearly as much experience with it). kfs is much less > so; I've had it become unrecoverable after unexpected shutdown several > times.
I know that kfs and Ken's file server are two different things. I have heard very good things about the reliability of both. You say kfs is not very reliable, oh well. > My experience with fossil has been somewhere between the two, > but it's very easy to recover if you're using it with venti. What does this recovery mean? Does fossil need to be repopulated, an O(n) operation, or does it act merely as a cache that gets cold? (an O(1) operation). > Using cwfs with venti > would seem a bit redundant, as you'd now have two unrelated systems > providing archival, write-once storage (unless cwfs grew some form of > venti integration while I wasn't watching). I did not know cwfs implements a WORM, obviously I expected it to use a WORM but I didn't know it implemented the WORM itself. It makes a lot of sense considering the ancestry. I guess I should stick with fossil. > I don't know much about RAID cards, but the main > thing I'd want to avoid there is proprietary on-disk formats. I've heard some cards merely mirror the data and the array metadata is stored in the card's nvram, not on disk. I may be mistaken, I am not a hardware guy. Obviously this only matters for mirroring, any other form of RAID requires some form of on-disk format. > It might be a bit > much for home use, but if I had a little bit of a budget I'd use Coraid's AoE > stuff as the basis for my storage. Yeah, it's pretty overkill. I've previously worked at a storage company as a file system guy and now I have at home a nice array with ZFS on top. It works great, but I want to scale down. I want less stuff, not more. And I want to use Plan9, not Solaris. Thanks, -- Aram Hăvărneanu
