In article <90f71fcedeb5b45a5bed515862b8a...@hamnavoe.com>,
Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
>> 1) If it is upgraded to latest version of Snow Leopard (I think 10.6.3?),
>>will anything regarding 9vx.OSX break?
>
>As far as I can tell, 9vx works fine on MacOSX 10.6.7.
Just a note tha
In article ,
Greg Comeau wrote:
>In article ,
>Greg Comeau wrote:
>>As mentioned in a post yesterday, we seem to have succeeded in getting
>>5c et al built. However, in resuming playing around at least one case
>>/bin/ape/sh is producing:
>>
>>./command-name[3]: other-command-name: cannot execut
On 04/16/11 23:49, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
> Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
Whatsoever it is, though GNU sucks, but the GNU/Linux is dominating the
markets:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/software/19762-The-Linux-Microsoft-war-over.html
--
Balwinder S "bdheeman" DheemanRegistered Li
erik quanstrom writes:
>> It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
>> uniquely identified by .
>
> how do you specify the device? you can't without giving up
> on per-process-group namespaces. i don't think there's any
> way to uniquely identify a device except th
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:32 AM, wrote:
> I got the impression, from what I read, that the kernel driver chooses
> the device number.
what's a device number and why would we need one?
ron
Bakul Shah writes:
> Ask yourself *why* do you need it. Is it just convenience
> (what you are used to) or is there something you do that
> absolutely requires hard links? Next compare the benefit
> of hardlinks to their cost. It is worth it?
I'm trying to create a data structure in the form of
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:44 AM, wrote:
> I'm trying to create a data structure in the form of a directed acyclic
> graph (DAG). A file system would be an ideal way to represent the data,
> except that P9 exposes no transaction to give a node more than one name.
warning: i'm going to try to ta
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:44:32 - smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
> Bakul Shah writes:
>
> > Ask yourself *why* do you need it. Is it just convenience
> > (what you are used to) or is there something you do that
> > absolutely requires hard links? Next compare the benefit
> > of hardlinks to thei
> You can overlay your naming
> FS on top of an existing disk based FS. In effect each named
> file in this naming FS maps to a "canonical name" of a disk
> based file. You can implement linking via a ctl file or
> something.
Is lnfs(4) a relevant example?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:17:21 BST Richard Miller <9f...@hamnavoe.com> wrote:
> > You can overlay your naming
> > FS on top of an existing disk based FS. In effect each named
> > file in this naming FS maps to a "canonical name" of a disk
> > based file. You can implement linking via a ctl file or
> IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
> metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
> namespace that spans multiple disks or nodes for increasing
> data redundancy, file size beyond the largest disk size,
> throughput (and yes, complexity).
that certainly does s
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, erik quanstrom
wrote:
>> IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
>> metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
>> namespace that spans multiple disks or nodes for increasing
>> data redundancy, file size beyond the largest disk size
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:17:50 PDT ron minnich wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, erik quanstrom
> wrote:
> >> IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
> >> metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
> >> namespace that spans multiple disks or nodes for incre
> > that certainly does seem like the hard way to do things.
> > why should the structure of the data depend on where it's
> > located? certainly ken's fs doesn't change the format of
> > the worm if you concatinate several devices for the worm
> > or use just one.
>
> This would be a long discus
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
> could you please clarify? i'm not following along.
I'm at the end of a long day and not able to write a good explanation
of what they are thinking. :-)
ron
On Thu Apr 21 20:01:54 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, erik quanstrom wrote:
>
> > could you please clarify? i'm not following along.
>
> I'm at the end of a long day and not able to write a good explanation
> of what they are thinking. :-)
no problems.
16 matches
Mail list logo
