Talk:Olpcfs: Difference between revisions
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
No edit summary |
(Reply to comments.) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
If you haven't already, consider taking a look at the Linux version of Venti as well, it is available in the plan 9 from user space suite: http://swtch.com/plan9 |
If you haven't already, consider taking a look at the Linux version of Venti as well, it is available in the plan 9 from user space suite: http://swtch.com/plan9 |
||
Also consider using 9P instead of FUSE as it can give you implicit distributed file system capabilities -[[User:Ericvh|Ericvh]] 15:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT) |
Also consider using 9P instead of FUSE as it can give you implicit distributed file system capabilities -[[User:Ericvh|Ericvh]] 15:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT) |
||
: I will probably consider 9P for a 2nd implementation, mostly due to API issues. I'm not interested in building a distributed file system, however. [[User:CScott|CScott]] 13:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT) |
|||
In order to guard against database corruption, I suggest that any important file attributes be stored as xattrs on the file (in addition to within the index). Whether the file is a landmark version and maybe MIME type is important. Preview is not important. Tags might be important. The most trustworthy database is the kind you can 'rm -rf' and regenerate. [[User:Jpritikin|Jpritikin]] 10:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT) |
In order to guard against database corruption, I suggest that any important file attributes be stored as xattrs on the file (in addition to within the index). Whether the file is a landmark version and maybe MIME type is important. Preview is not important. Tags might be important. The most trustworthy database is the kind you can 'rm -rf' and regenerate. [[User:Jpritikin|Jpritikin]] 10:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT) |
||
: Too far down this path and we'll end up wasting a lot of space on redundant content. There is a degree to which you are completely correct, however. [[User:CScott|CScott]] 13:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT) |
|||
Revision as of 17:15, 9 May 2008
If you haven't already, consider taking a look at the Linux version of Venti as well, it is available in the plan 9 from user space suite: http://swtch.com/plan9 Also consider using 9P instead of FUSE as it can give you implicit distributed file system capabilities -Ericvh 15:34, 21 March 2008 (EDT)
- I will probably consider 9P for a 2nd implementation, mostly due to API issues. I'm not interested in building a distributed file system, however. CScott 13:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT)
In order to guard against database corruption, I suggest that any important file attributes be stored as xattrs on the file (in addition to within the index). Whether the file is a landmark version and maybe MIME type is important. Preview is not important. Tags might be important. The most trustworthy database is the kind you can 'rm -rf' and regenerate. Jpritikin 10:12, 29 April 2008 (EDT)
- Too far down this path and we'll end up wasting a lot of space on redundant content. There is a degree to which you are completely correct, however. CScott 13:15, 9 May 2008 (EDT)