> [ ... ] what the signifigance of the xargs size limits of > btrfs might be. [ ... ] So what does it mean that btrfs has a > higher xargs size limit than other file systems? [ ... ] Or > does the lower capacity for argument length for hfsplus > demonstrate it is the superior file system for avoiding > breakage? [ ... ]
That confuses, as my understanding of command argument size limit is that it is a system, not filesystem, property, and for example can be obtained with 'getconf _POSIX_ARG_MAX'. > Personally, I would go back to fossil and venti on Plan 9 for > an archival data server (using WORM drives), In an ideal world we would be using Plan 9. Not necessarily with Fossil and Venti. As a to storage/backup/archival Linux based options are not bad, even if the platform is far messier than Plan 9 (or some other alternatives). BTW I just noticed with a search that AWS might be offering Plan 9 hosts :-). > and VAX/VMS cluster for an HA server. [ ... ] Uhmmm, however nice it was, it was fairly weird. An IA32 or AMD64 port has been promised however :-). https://www.theregister.co.uk/2016/10/13/openvms_moves_slowly_towards_x86/ -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
