On 01/03/12 19:27, Greg Troxel wrote: > Brian Warner <war...@lothar.com> writes: > >> Yeah, that's a fair argument. I built "tahoe backup" because it seemed >> the best way to take advantage of tahoe's unique features. The >> orthogonal way to handle backups, as implemented in a zillion existing >> programs, generally expects a POSIX-like backend filesystem. Tahoe is >> both more and less than that: >> >> * it has immutable files and directories, which can safely be shared >> between subsequent backups >> * modifying files is expensive, and new files should be written >> all-at-once > > True, but I wonder if that means that a tahoe-specific backup program is > needed, or just one that uses a mostly-posix filesystem in a careful > way, so that it's reasonably efficient for a class of filesystems.
'tahoe backup' constructs immutable directory trees, which requires each tree to be built leaves-first. It would be impossible to achieve that with a POSIX API, which requires that parent directories are constructed before children. -- David-Sarah Hopwood ⚥
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
_______________________________________________ tahoe-dev mailing list tahoe-dev@tahoe-lafs.org http://tahoe-lafs.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/tahoe-dev
