On Fri, 2011-08-12 at 12:18 -0400, Russ Cox wrote:
> i call this 'ventino'.
Shouldn't it be 'ventina'?
Venti seems feminine.
i call this 'ventino'. it's a tiny venti that keeps
the whole index in memory, backed by a text file.
i have not used it in a while (the file is dated may 25, 2009)
but hey, it's a working venti server in 329 lines of code.
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
#include
ty
On Fri, Aug 12, 2011 at 12:50 AM, dexen deVries wrote:
> Venti would make a great backend for Git.
I guess you could do this; it'd be interesting to do something more in
keeping with the Unix model than git is.
Create repo:
dd -if etc. etc.
checkout
unvac
commit
vac etc.
compare two trees:
On Thursday 11 of August 2011 18:15:09 ron minnich wrote:
> Could we make little venti files and finally try to build an SCM using
> these files?
Venti would make a great backend for Git. I believe Git's commit and tree
format are simple enough to be re-implemented, if porting proves to be too
b
got it... Seems to build fine now.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:54 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> Lucho is always up to date, better do a pull for go
>
> ron
>
>
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 5:42 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Fazlul Shahriar
> wrote:
>>
>> > Is it goinstallable? If so, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I very
>> > rarely use any 3rd party Go code but my own :-).
>>
>> goinstall govt.googlecode.com/hg/vt/vt
Lucho is always up to date, better do a pull for go
ron
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 2:19 PM, Fazlul Shahriar wrote:
> > Is it goinstallable? If so, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I very
> > rarely use any 3rd party Go code but my own :-).
>
> goinstall govt.googlecode.com/hg/vt/vtclnt
> goinstall govt.googlecode.com/hg/vt/vtsrv
>
> Works for me.
>
>
> Is it goinstallable? If so, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I very
> rarely use any 3rd party Go code but my own :-).
goinstall govt.googlecode.com/hg/vt/vtclnt
goinstall govt.googlecode.com/hg/vt/vtsrv
Works for me.
fhs
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:50 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> Is it goinstallable? If so, I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong. I very
> rarely use any 3rd party Go code but my own :-).
no idea. I just hg clone'd and did a make
ron
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:07 PM, ron minnich wrote:
> anyway, enough discussion. hack hack is better than talk talk at some point
> :-)
>
> I'm about to bench lucho's server on a 32GB arena (all of which will
> be mmap'ed of course).
>
> ron
>
>
Is it goinstallable? If so, I'm not sure what I'm
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 13:04:05 PDT ron minnich wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
>
> > Pay attention to vtsync? May be not for your mythical multiTB
> > ramflash but in real life syncing on every write is expensive.
>
> are you sure? On a multicore server, why not have
> > Pay attention to vtsync? May be not for your mythical multiTB
> > ramflash but in real life syncing on every write is expensive.
>
> are you sure? On a multicore server, why not have a syncing task and a
> serving task? Since all of the arena is in ram, the synciing task will
> not interfere
anyway, enough discussion. hack hack is better than talk talk at some point :-)
I'm about to bench lucho's server on a 32GB arena (all of which will
be mmap'ed of course).
ron
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 12:54 PM, Bakul Shah wrote:
> Pay attention to vtsync? May be not for your mythical multiTB
> ramflash but in real life syncing on every write is expensive.
are you sure? On a multicore server, why not have a syncing task and a
serving task? Since all of the arena is in
> Pay attention to vtsync? May be not for your mythical multiTB
> ramflash but in real life syncing on every write is expensive.
flash has noticable latency.
> [As I see it] in a sense venti has an atomic `changeset'
> concept (each changeset maps to a single "fingerprint"). A
> partial changes
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:15:09 PDT ron minnich wrote:
>
> Note a difference between lucho and me: I ignore vtsync (I always sync
> on writes) and he properly pays attention to it. Question for the
> student: which one is better? Why?
Pay attention to vtsync? May be not for your mythical multiTB
On Thu, 11 Aug 2011 09:15:09 PDT ron minnich wrote:
>
> Could we make little venti files and finally try to build an SCM using
> these files?
Funny you should say that!
May be I should post my half-assed ideas on extending hgfs for
commits etc. I was thinking a proper frontend/backend
separati
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 11:33 AM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX) <
lyn...@orthanc.ca> wrote:
> > Isn't p9p POSIX enough?
>
> It's a matter of laziness; I'd rather port venti to POSIX once rather
> than port p9p to many things. There are just enough
> platform-dependent bits in p9p to make it en
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:37 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom
> wrote:
> this is the same
> > dillema any non content-addressed disk has. performance
> > vs. safety. and of course one size doesn't fit all, so there are knobs
> in
> > most disks to tu
> Isn't p9p POSIX enough?
It's a matter of laziness; I'd rather port venti to POSIX once rather
than port p9p to many things. There are just enough
platform-dependent bits in p9p to make it enough of an annoyance for
me to go the POSIX route.
On Thu Aug 11 13:38:25 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom
> wrote:
> this is the same
> > dillema any non content-addressed disk has. performance
> > vs. safety. and of course one size doesn't fit all, so there are knobs in
> > most disks to
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:28 AM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
this is the same
> dillema any non content-addressed disk has. performance
> vs. safety. and of course one size doesn't fit all, so there are knobs in
> most disks to turn off write caching.
it's not as obvious a tradeoff as it seems.
A
> > question cannot be answered due to insufficient
> > information about what "better" means. are you after
> > performance or reliability?
>
>
> That's part of the question Which is better? ->Why?<-
>
> Maybe I should say 'explain your answer' :-)
you have to define better first, and you hav
My version of the govt actually works sometimes.
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:49 AM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM, ron minnich wrote:
>>
>> OK, there is a go version that lucho wrote:
>> https://code.google.com/p/govt/
>
> Hooray for government! Oh, wait...
>
> a better
> approach might be to separate the libraries from the much larger distribution
> of plan 9-based commands etc, and make them available in the usual way
> as packages to import using the (many different) package managers on
> Unix-like systems.
this is what i was looking into just this
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
>> Note a difference between lucho and me: I ignore vtsync (I always sync
>> on writes) and he properly pays attention to it. Question for the
>> student: which one is better? Why?
>
> question cannot be answered due to insufficient
> informat
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:49 AM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> > Note a difference between lucho and me: I ignore vtsync (I always sync
> > on writes) and he properly pays attention to it. Question for the
> > student: which one is better? Why?
>
> question cannot be answered due to insufficient
> infor
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 9:15 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> OK, there is a go version that lucho wrote:
> https://code.google.com/p/govt/
Hooray for government! Oh, wait...
> Note a difference between lucho and me: I ignore vtsync (I always sync
> on writes) and he properly pays attention to it. Question for the
> student: which one is better? Why?
question cannot be answered due to insufficient
information about what "better" means. are you after
performance or rel
OK, there is a go version that lucho wrote: https://code.google.com/p/govt/
It's very nice code.
There will soon be a googlecode repo (lucho is setting it up now) with
a non-plan9-ports version (vtmm). Find it in googlecode at libvt.
It's also quite nice and much more capable than what I posted y
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 10:09 AM, Charles Forsyth wrote:
> rather than continue to live for the next 20 years with
> (say) 20- to 30-year old include file structures and library implementations
> that became overly complicated (and badly implemented), a better
> approach might be to separate the l
rather than continue to live for the next 20 years with
(say) 20- to 30-year old include file structures and library implementations
that became overly complicated (and badly implemented), a better
approach might be to separate the libraries from the much larger distribution
of plan 9-based command
On Thu, Aug 11, 2011 at 1:21 AM, ron minnich wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
>
>> Isn't p9p POSIX enough? Confused I am, but wasn't that the point of p9p?
>>
>
> p9p gives you a runtime environment just like Plan 9s. From the point
> of view of a programmer you ca
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 8:05 PM, David Leimbach wrote:
> Isn't p9p POSIX enough? Confused I am, but wasn't that the point of p9p?
>
p9p gives you a runtime environment just like Plan 9s. From the point
of view of a programmer you can even pretend you're not in a POSIX
world.It's wonderful but t
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 10, 2011, at 3:07 PM, "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)"
wrote:
>> Isn't p9p venti good enough?
>
> Nope. It only works where p9p works. I want code that will compile
> on any POSIX-compliant host.
>
>
Isn't p9p POSIX enough? Confused I am, but wasn't that th
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 3:07 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
wrote:
>> Isn't p9p venti good enough?
>
> Nope. It only works where p9p works. I want code that will compile
> on any POSIX-compliant host.
>
>
>
hang in there for just a bit longer. I understand what you want.
ron
> Isn't p9p venti good enough?
Nope. It only works where p9p works. I want code that will compile
on any POSIX-compliant host.
On Wed, 10 Aug 2011 14:54:05 PDT "Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)"
wrote:
> > hang in there.
>
> Ach! Ye of little Faithe!
>
> 1) Write drivers for obtuse RAID controllers.
> or
> 2) Port venti to POSIX.
Isn't p9p venti good enough?
On Wed Aug 10 17:57:03 EDT 2011, lyn...@orthanc.ca wrote:
> > hang in there.
>
> Ach! Ye of little Faithe!
>
> 1) Write drivers for obtuse RAID controllers.
> or
> 2) Port venti to POSIX.
>
> Hmm ... let me think about that for a minute ...
>
> Time's up! Back to dealing with POSIX :-) And gi
> hang in there.
Ach! Ye of little Faithe!
1) Write drivers for obtuse RAID controllers.
or
2) Port venti to POSIX.
Hmm ... let me think about that for a minute ...
Time's up! Back to dealing with POSIX :-) And given enough
tequila, it can revert to almost pure ANSI C.
--lyndon
On Wed, Aug 10, 2011 at 2:36 PM, Lyndon Nerenberg (VE6BBM/VE7TFX)
wrote:
> How about a more complex venti that runs on a strict POSIX host? I
> would really prefer to run my venti on my Solaris fileserver. ZFS for
> this application lets me sleep better at night.
hang in there.
ron
How about a more complex venti that runs on a strict POSIX host? I
would really prefer to run my venti on my Solaris fileserver. ZFS for
this application lets me sleep better at night.
I'm half-way there, but the boat takes priority this month.
--lyndon
I've been working with people who anticipate that big flash that looks
like ram will be available mid/end of the decade. By big, I mean big
as your disk. By RAM, yep, I mean RAM. Reboot, it's all still there.
Needless to say, this changes things a bit. I also noticed the venti
stats: many of the v
44 matches
Mail list logo
