On 6/8/05, Scott Long <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ivan Voras wrote:
> > Scott Long wrote:
> >
> >> Again, I'm not exactly sure how a generic mechanism can handle the
> >> distinction of data vs. metadata vs. journal data. Also, what you
> >
> >
> > I don't care about the distinction at this level
Stephan Uphoff wrote:
In my opinion the original proposal described a non volatile write cache
using dedicated cache disks.
Yes, I think that best describes what I have in mind. Here's the
proposal that went to Google yesterday:
http://geri.cc.fer.hr/~ivoras/proposal.pdf
__
On Tue, 2005-06-07 at 16:52, Scott Long wrote:
> David Malone wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> >
> >>+> Does it make sense to do it this way? Is it worth applying for the SoC?
> >>
> >>Not sure. Basically this is simlar what softupdate does, I think
Scott Long wrote:
>Again, I'm not exactly sure how a generic mechanism can handle the
>distinction of data vs. metadata vs. journal data. Also, what you
Ivan Voras wrote:
>I don't care about the distinction at this level - all data is treated
>equal.
Scott Long wrote:
>But for j
Ivan Voras wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Again, I'm not exactly sure how a generic mechanism can handle the
distinction of data vs. metadata vs. journal data. Also, what you
I don't care about the distinction at this level - all data is treated
equal.
But for journalling to work, you must c
Scott Long wrote:
Again, I'm not exactly sure how a generic mechanism can handle the
distinction of data vs. metadata vs. journal data. Also, what you
I don't care about the distinction at this level - all data is treated
equal :)
___
freebsd-hack
Ivan Voras wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
An alternate SoC project that would be very useful is block-level
snapshots. I'm not sure if I'll be able to retain the filesystem
snapshot functionality in UFS with journalling enabled, so moving to
doing the snapshots in the block layer would be a good w
Eric Anderson wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
Richard Coleman wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
/me jumps up and down and waves his hands
The problem with journalling at the block layer is that you pretty
much become forced to journal metadata and data, since the block
layer really doesn't know the dist
Scott Long wrote:
Richard Coleman wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
/me jumps up and down and waves his hands
The problem with journalling at the block layer is that you pretty
much become forced to journal metadata and data, since the block
layer really doesn't know the distinction, and definitely
Scott Long wrote:
An alternate SoC project that would be very useful is block-level
snapshots. I'm not sure if I'll be able to retain the filesystem
snapshot functionality in UFS with journalling enabled, so moving to
doing the snapshots in the block layer would be a good way to make up
for
Richard Coleman wrote:
Scott Long wrote:
/me jumps up and down and waves his hands
The problem with journalling at the block layer is that you pretty
much become forced to journal metadata and data, since the block layer
really doesn't know the distinction, and definitely not in a
filesyste
Scott Long wrote:
/me jumps up and down and waves his hands
The problem with journalling at the block layer is that you pretty much
become forced to journal metadata and data, since the block layer really
doesn't know the distinction, and definitely not in a
filesystem-independent way (yes, U
> The problem with journalling at the block layer is that you pretty much
> become forced to journal metadata and data, since the block layer really
> doesn't know the distinction,
Definitely - I guess I should have stated that explicitly.
> Full journalling has many drawbacks from the viewpoin
David Malone wrote:
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
+> Does it make sense to do it this way? Is it worth applying for the SoC?
Not sure. Basically this is simlar what softupdate does, I think.
From another point of view softupdates are only available for UF
On Tue, Jun 07, 2005 at 09:40:05PM +0200, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote:
> +> Does it make sense to do it this way? Is it worth applying for the SoC?
>
> Not sure. Basically this is simlar what softupdate does, I think.
> From another point of view softupdates are only available for UFS.
> You probabl
On Mon, Jun 06, 2005 at 06:11:23PM +0200, Ivan Voras wrote:
+> I have an idea that I could implement through Google's "Summer of Code"
+> project, but as I have little experience with stuff it involves (kernel
+> programming / disks / filesystem optimization), so I expect any answer
+> from "It
I have an idea that I could implement through Google's "Summer of Code"
project, but as I have little experience with stuff it involves (kernel
programming / disks / filesystem optimization), so I expect any answer
from "It won't work" or "It's useless" to "It can't be done". :)
The idea is t
17 matches
Mail list logo
