John Gilmore wrote: >On Saturday 12 November 2005 06:38, Hans Reiser wrote: > > >>Being seamless, cleanly implemented, and requiring little or no admin >>work, matters a lot to end users. >> >> >Amen, Brother! > > > > >>Yes, users can do what you said with rsync, but it is important that it >>be no more work than specifying a --use-versioning mount option, and >>even that is beyond most users (but that is where defaults come in to >>help them). >> >>The namespace for the past versions should be as cleanly done as WAFL >>does them. Whether space gets freed automatically when space gets <10% >>is another mount option. Where we might do better than WAFL is in >>allowing touching filename/..../checkin to cause a version to get >>recorded, rather than doing it at particular times. >> >>Hans >> >> >Of particular concern is that the name space should (somehow) > somehow = filename/versions/version_number and ls -l filename/versions ?
>allow me to >easily grab version by date, even if the file hadn't changed for the two >weeks before that, and in fact still hasn't changed... Make it really easy to >grab all or some files by wildcard and with a specific revision, even when >not every file changed with that revision. > >Oh, BTW. "The slowdown" as I called it is still there. I guess I spoke to >soon. The specific symptom is that the effected process locks for a time, >usually just a second or two, but sometimes a minute or two and and at least >once for many many minutes. I think that the crash (soft lockup) that I >reported earlier is related as well. And it sounds like the comment that >rvalles had about lockups with mmaped files, except that it doesn't lock up >permanently. Just for a second or three usually. > > > zam, please comment. > > >
