> It's part of the EFI promise: everything they touch will turn to merde :-)
optimist!
- erik
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 8:53 AM, Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - One potential method to provide access to contiguous
>> disk space may be a rich partitioning system, e.g. GPT.
>
> I can't believe what a terrible idea this is. I honestly thought
> that PC architecture couldn't get any wo
On 2008-06-06, Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> - Using venti for backing up a streaming application is not a good idea.
>> - Contiguous storage areas may be better.
>
> So far I agree with you.
>
...
>
> to the disk's ctl file. A GPT implementation would be only a few
> hundred lines conf
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>> > VAC eg. is good for archiving, but it's tree-based structure
>> > is probably not optimal for streaming (on large files, a lot
>> > of blocks IMHO have to be loaded before getting
> - Using venti for backing up a streaming application is not a good idea.
> - Contiguous storage areas may be better.
So far I agree with you.
> - One potential method to provide access to contiguous
> disk space may be a rich partitioning system, e.g. GPT.
I can't believe what a terrible id
> Yes. A protective mbr is in the specification. Protective means: Not to be
> used for fiddling.
the spec says that the protective mbr should include entries reserving
the space used by gpt partitions. thus if you use fdisk to edit such
a partition table, you will not harm gpt unless you delete
erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
Of course, some support form the OS is needed, which excludes Plan9.
>>>
>>> what is the basis for this claim? references?
>>>
...
>
> plan 9 doesn't support gpt.
This was my claim. Nothing else. You d
> In his paper about Foundation Russ Cox explains some circumstances
> where you probably don't want venti to archive these files forever.
> For these sort of files the services of other file systems are
> overkill, too. You don't want write more than one at the same time mostly.
> You don't need t
> erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>>> Of course, some support form the OS is needed, which excludes Plan9.
>>
>> what is the basis for this claim? references?
>>
>> - erik
>>
>
> Does Plan9 support GPT partitions now? The last time I tried Plan9 on a
> GPT partitioned disk I got my di
Francisco J Ballesteros <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
> a gpt partitioned disk should have its mbr declaring mostly the disk
> in use, IIRC, plan 9 fdisk does not screw it up unless you decide
> to change the partitions in the mbr.
On a GPT partitioned disk the mbr has to be ignored, as there is no
a gpt partitioned disk should have its mbr declaring mostly the disk
in use, IIRC, plan 9 fdisk does not screw it up unless you decide
to change the partitions in the mbr.
On Fri, Jun 6, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Wilhelm B. Kloke
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>>
erik quanstrom <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>> Of course, some support form the OS is needed, which excludes Plan9.
>
> what is the basis for this claim? references?
>
> - erik
>
Does Plan9 support GPT partitions now? The last time I tried Plan9 on a
GPT partitioned disk I got my disk severely sc
> Of course, some support form the OS is needed, which excludes Plan9.
what is the basis for this claim? references?
- erik
Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> schrieb:
>
> Well, I'll have to think about this. My primary goal is to
> make the sequential read as fast as possible. There won't be
> any non-sequential access.
>
IMHO, using venti to serve streams is a bad idea. None of the advantages
of venti do matter in t
* Russ Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > VAC eg. is good for archiving, but it's tree-based structure
> > is probably not optimal for streaming (on large files, a lot
> > of blocks IMHO have to be loaded before getting the first
> > payload block can be reached).
>
> A typical venti tree has a
> VAC eg. is good for archiving, but it's tree-based structure
> is probably not optimal for streaming (on large files, a lot
> of blocks IMHO have to be loaded before getting the first
> payload block can be reached).
A typical venti tree has a branching factor of 409 (8192/20).
For a 1GB fi
> It's intendet for video streaming. Upload is uncritical, but
> sequential download should be fast.
>
> The venti behind will be clustered, but that's another story ...
there's no such thing as sequential in venti. venti is content
addressed.
- erik
* ron minnich <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > Hi folks,
> >
> >
> > is anyone already working on an venti-based storage format
> > which is optimized for streaming ?
> >
>
> ah, well, what's this mean? What kind of data
On Thu, Jun 5, 2008 at 4:24 AM, Enrico Weigelt <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> Hi folks,
>
>
> is anyone already working on an venti-based storage format
> which is optimized for streaming ?
>
ah, well, what's this mean? What kind of data rate are you looking at?
ron
Hi folks,
is anyone already working on an venti-based storage format
which is optimized for streaming ?
VAC eg. is good for archiving, but it's tree-based structure
is probably not optimal for streaming (on large files, a lot
of blocks IMHO have to be loaded before getting the first
payload
20 matches
Mail list logo
