On June 14, 2007 5:07:39 PM -0700 mike <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/14/07, Frank Cusack <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but there are many ways to get transactions, e.g. journalling.
ext3 is journaled. it doesn't seem to always be able to recover data.
zfs is COW. it isn't always able to recover data.
Like ext3, this is the result of bugs, not a COW vs journalling thing.
Or perhaps in a few ext3 cases, the result of bad data making it to
disk ... but still not related to COW vs journalling.
it also takes forever to fsck.
the journal is supposed to pretty much eliminate fsck time. you might
be doing a full fsck as opposed to journal playback.
i thought COW might alleviate some of the fsck needs...
It does, but that's not unique to COW.
it just seems like a more efficient (or guaranteed?)
method of disk commitment.
it might be more efficient. i *think* this depends on your usage pattern.
i think that "typically", it does outperform other methods.
anyway, my point is that i didn't think COW was in and of itself a feature
a home or SOHO user would really care about. it's more an implementation
detail of zfs than a feature. i'm sure this is arguable.
ps. top posting especially sucks when you ask multiple questions.
yes, sir!
heh
-frank
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
