Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-10 Thread Bill Sommerfeld
On Fri, 2006-10-06 at 00:07 -0700, Richard L. Hamilton wrote: > Some people are making money on the concept, so I > suppose there are those who perceive benefits: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ClearCase > > (I dimly remember DSEE on the Apollos; ...) I used both fairly extensively.

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-09 Thread Larry Becke
Why not see if you can find (or write, or have written) an editor that does the version name changes for you? i.e. - each time you save, or each auto-save, it writes a different version of the file, and when you exit, it asks if you'd like to retain the other versions or not? Sounds like it wo

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread Siegfried Nikolaivich
> So, if I build it, people will want it? ;) I think implementing this feature would help Apple adopt ZFS for Time Machine, which is essentially a versioning FS in practice. Actually I don't know if Apple does this, but you can increment versions with kernel notifications of file changes (Spot

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread A. C. Censi
Just to put the references I read in the past about it: http://www.microsoft.com/technet/windowsvista/library/4ac505e6-dd8b-4ae7-80fa-b9d77cd8104d.mspx Windows 2003 Derver implementation (for server side copies of client user files) Working with the Windows Server 2003 Volume Shadow Copy Service

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread Joerg Schilling
"A. C. Censi" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems that Windows 2003 (and VIsta will too), supports file > versioning. I am not familiar with the implementation. AFAIR it is > using the "alternate data stream" builtin in NTFS, to work with the > versions and hide the versions from the user. > Th

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread A. C. Censi
It seems that Windows 2003 (and VIsta will too), supports file versioning. I am not familiar with the implementation. AFAIR it is using the "alternate data stream" builtin in NTFS, to work with the versions and hide the versions from the user. Certainly in Vista they will have to handle at least

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread Joerg Schilling
"Anton B. Rang" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >People are oriented to their files, not to snapshots. > > True, though with NetApp-style snapshots, it's not that difficult to > translate 'src/file.c' to '.snapshot/hourly.0/src/file.c' and see what it was > like an hour ago. I imagine that a syntax

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-07 Thread Anton B. Rang
> If you disagree, please tell us *why* you think snapshots don't solve the > problem. Three reasons. First of all, unless we have per-file snapshots, there's no way to keep old versions of particularly important files without keeping old versions of everything else. If I have a 4 GB video in

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Jonathan Edwards
On Oct 6, 2006, at 23:42, Anton B. Rang wrote:I don't agree that version control systems solve the same problem as file versioning. I don't want to check *every change* that I make into version control -- it makes the history unwieldy. At the same time, if I make a change that turns out to work rea

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Anton B. Rang
>Versioning cannot be automated; taking periodic snapshots != capturing >application state. But I think we have existence proofs of operating systems which do automate versioning. It's true that capturing a new version each time a file has been modified and closed may not be perfect, but if it

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Anton B. Rang
>People are oriented to their files, not to snapshots. True, though with NetApp-style snapshots, it's not that difficult to translate 'src/file.c' to '.snapshot/hourly.0/src/file.c' and see what it was like an hour ago. I imagine that a syntax like '.snapshot/22:20/src/file.c' would also be eas

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Anton B. Rang
>I think our problem is that we look at FV from different angles. I look >at it from the point of view of people who have NEVER used FV, and you >look at it from the view of people who have ALWAYS used FV. That's certainly a part of it. It's interesting reading this discussion, as someone who u

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Nicolas Williams
On Fri, Oct 06, 2006 at 09:18:16AM -0700, Anton B. Rang wrote: > ClearCase is a version control system, though — not the same as file > versioning. But they have a filesystem interface. Crucially, this involves additional interfaces. VC cannot be automatic. _

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Anton B. Rang
ClearCase is a version control system, though — not the same as file versioning. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] Re: A versioning FS

2006-10-06 Thread Richard L. Hamilton
> What would a version FS buy us that cron+ zfs > snapshots doesn't? Some people are making money on the concept, so I suppose there are those who perceive benefits: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rational_ClearCase (I dimly remember DSEE on the Apollos; also some sort of versioning file type on (