On Oct 6, 2006, at 3:14 PM, Erik Trimble wrote:
Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:disclaimer: I have not used zfs snapshots a lot as I am still experimenting with zfs, but they appear to be similar to freebsd snapshots, with which I am familiar.You can't turn off and on File Versioning at the file level. At least, I can't imaging trying to support (i.e. write) this kind of functionality into ZFS.The user experience with snapshots, in terms of file versioning (#1, #2, maybe #3) is much worse than a true file versioning user experience. People are oriented to their files, not to snapshots. And I may not want versioning with all my files (object files etc) which you would get with the snapshots.Chad
??? I will admit that I am not involved with the ZFS code, but it would seem that extensible meta data should make this easy. From reading some threads in a forum about Apple's possible use of ZFS (conjecture in some forums) a Sun engineer mentioned that ZFS was easily extensible in the meta data arena so that Apple should have no problems meeting their requirements. Was this incorrect?
File Versioning would be a tunable parameter for each filesystem. So, you'd have to store your object files on a different filesystem than your code. Which would make snapshots no different than FV, w/ r/t keeping versions of the code, and not the object files.
The problem is that you are stuck on snapshots and cannot think "outside of the box". All your implementations you are thinking of are constrained by your tunnel vision.
This is not meant as a personal attack. It is just that the arguments you put forth (in your long post which I am in the middle of replying to) show that this tunnel vision is readily apparent.
Chad
-Erik
--- Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC Your Web App and Email hosting provider chad at shire.net
smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME cryptographic signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
