On Sunday, April 24, 2011 09:10:22 AM erik quanstrom wrote: > <snipped>
Thanks for satisfying those questions, much appreciated! On Sunday, April 24, 2011 08:01:01 AM Steve Simon wrote: > Ideally there would be a wiki page on this - I will have a go shortly... > That would be helpful; looking through the archives, I can see that similar questions - regarding the effective differences between the various plan 9 disk fs's - have been brought up on the list before. On Sunday, April 24, 2011 09:10:22 AM erik quanstrom wrote: > > How about in terms of resources/overhead - is kfs more appropriate in > > constrained/embedded devices than cwfs? > > by default, kfs just uses 10mb of memory. i haven't run cwfs enough to > say with any confidence how well cwfs does. but kfs will use less disk > space (and if no changes, constant space) since old copies are not kept. > > > Or maintainability? Are kfs and cwfs both relatively equal in terms of > > maintenance and/or disaster recovery? > > both have a weak spot. > kfs. there's one copy of the file system. if you corrupt it, you're out > of luck. i've never seen this happen. > > cwfs. if the fs is halted during the dump, there is a non-zero chance > of corruption. i have seen this, but "recover main" can usually roll the > fs back to the last good dump. the same mechanism can recover a fs > if an untimely shutdown has corrupted the cache. > > > Are kfs and cwfs equally dependable/stable? > > i would say so. > > > 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? > > it depends. i would tend to use kfs only if i were storing my real data > someplace else. i find the lack of history to be a big problem. but then > again, i tend not to run fses on terminals. i just run ken's fs and am > done with it. :-) > > - erik
