Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> WOFS lives on a Write once medium, WOFS itself is not write once.
>
> Oops, now that I read your thesis, I see. So you can treat a WORM
> like a normal disk. Cool :)
Thank you ;-)
> How come it never got traction? There was a time in the 90s when
On 09 May 2006, at 23:48, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
WOFS lives on a Write once medium, WOFS itself is not write once.
Oops, now that I read your thesis, I see. So you can treat a WORM
like a normal disk. Cool :)
How come it never got traction? There
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >> WOFS lives on a Write once medium, WOFS itself is not write once.
> >>
> >> I would need to check my papers there is a solution.
> >
> > If you unlink the original name/inode entry you can mark it as deleted
> > without actually deleting it, thus le
On 09 May 2006, at 18:09, Nicolas Williams wrote:
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:37:07PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Yes, but WOFS is a write-once filesystem. ZFS is read-write. What
happens if you delete the file referenced by the inode-softlinks?
WOFS
On Tue, May 09, 2006 at 05:37:07PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On 07 May 2006, at 17:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > > If ZFS did use my concept, you don't have the problems you have
> > > with FAT.
> >
> > Yes, but WOFS is a write-once filesystem. Z
Wout Mertens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> On 07 May 2006, at 17:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Look at my WOFS from 1990... It uses 'gnodes' that include the
> > filename
> > in one single meta data chunk for a file. Hard links are
> > implemented as
> > inode number related soft links (wh
On 07 May 2006, at 17:03, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Look at my WOFS from 1990... It uses 'gnodes' that include the
filename
in one single meta data chunk for a file. Hard links are
implemented as
inode number related soft links (while symlinks are name related
soft links).
If ZFS did use my
Frank Hofmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Yes, Microsoft's FAT does it the same way - the dirent is the inode.
>
> This creates locking nightmares in its own right - directory scans/updates
> may be blocking file access; at the very least, the two race. It might
> have advantages in some situat
ZFS must support POSIX semantics, part of which is hard links. Hard
links allow you to create multiple names (directory entries) for the
same file. Therefore, all UNIX filesystems have chosen to store the
file information separately for the directory entries (otherwise, you'd
have multiple copie
> ZFS must support POSIX semantics, part of which is hard links. Hard
> links allow you to create multiple names (directory entries) for the
> same file. Therefore, all UNIX filesystems have chosen to store the
> file information separately for the directory entries (otherwise, you'd
> have multipl
10 matches
Mail list logo
