mike wrote:
> On 9/5/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> As I wrote before, my wofs (designed and implemented 1989-1990 for SunOS 4.0,
>> published May 23th 1991) is copy on write based, does not need fsck and
>> always
>> offers a stable view on the media because it is COW.
>
> Side question:
>
> If COW is such an old concept, why haven't there been many filesystems
> that have become popular that use it? ZFS, BTRFS (I think) and maybe
> WAFL? At least that I know of. It seems like an excellent guarantee of
> disk commitment, yet we're all still fussing with journalled
> filesystems, filesystems that fragment, buffer lags (or whatever you
> might call it) etc.
>
> Just stirring the pot, seems like a reasonable question (perhaps one
> to take somewhere else or start a new thread...)
I think it was due to cpu cycles and memory not being quite
as cheap then as they are now.
Oh, and that it's sufficiently different from existing ideas
on how to write filesystems that there wasn't really any
incentive to actually do it.
"$X ain't broke (sufficiently) so let's not rock the boat"
James C. McPherson
--
Solaris kernel software engineer, system admin and troubleshooter
http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog
Find me on LinkedIn @ http://www.linkedin.com/in/jamescmcpherson
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
