On Thu May 17 12:11:27 EDT 2012, un...@cpan.org wrote: > cinap_len...@gmx.de wrote on Thu, May 17, 2012 at 08:37:09AM MST: > > you can do without a "other" fs. we added support for +t flags like > > there is in fossil, so you can just mark directories and files > > as temporary in the "main" filesystem so they dont get dumped > > to worm. (this works recursively on directories) > > > > but requires a bigger fscache partition if you have lots of stuff > > flagged temporary. and you loose all your +t flagged data when > > recovering the filesystem from the last archival snapshot (dump). > Considering what you wrote, I don't see any substantial benefit of supporting > +t flags in the "main" filesystem when you have "other" at your disposal. Has > that discussion already taken place on IRC or another mailing list? > > Why is +t preferable to having an "other" filesystem? Is it merely so that > you don't have to be concerned with guessing an appropriate size for the > "other" fileystem?
good question. as i see it, the argument for +t is that the files remain in the usual heirarchy. the arguments against are a) you lose your stuff if you "recover main" thus you can get into recovery situations with for-sure data loss. b) it is in the usual heirarchy, and thus one might forget that it's got the +t bit set. c) it puts pressure on the cache, which isn't prepared to be very large where as i've got a 1tb other. - erik
