On Sunday, April 24, 2011 04:13:59 AM erik quanstrom wrote: > > Question, regarding kfs and cwfs: why choose one over the other? > > > > In other words, what points are important to be aware of when deciding > > which of the two are more appropriate for any given new > > installation/deployment? (let's assume that kfs's 28-character filename > > limit isn't an issue, and that there's no concern for supporting legacy > > fs formats) > > > > Additionally, under what conditions/circumstances might either of those > > two be a more suitable/optimal alternative to, say, fossil? > > in my experience, both are more robust in the face of unexpected outages > than fossil. > > ken fs/cwfs also provides a dump file system (that is, history) without the > need to run venti. >
Thanks for the info - couple more questions, if you don't mind: How about in terms of resources/overhead - is kfs more appropriate in constrained/embedded devices than cwfs? Or maintainability? Are kfs and cwfs both relatively equal in terms of maintenance and/or disaster recovery? Are kfs and cwfs equally dependable/stable? Finally, what about the difference between a terminal and auth/cpu/fileserver - would kfs/cwfs be more or less appropriate for a terminal vs. a server? I'm curious, because I'm about to do another plan9 install after a pretty long hiatus; and this time I'd like to switch filesystems (fossil/venti distracted from my plan9 learning curve a bit last time) - I'd just like to get some extra info that's not in the man pages, so that I can make a more informed decision.
