Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-12 Thread Darren J Moffat
Darren Reed wrote: I think the idea you've suggested here, setting an extra bit or property in on the file as a part of the work flow is a better idea than the one I had in mind. Which is I believe covered by one or more of the following CRs: 5105713 want new security attributes on files 64174

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-11 Thread Darren Reed
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Hmm, I think I'd rather see this built into programs, such as 'rm', rather than into the filesystem itself. For example, if I'm using ZFS for my OpenSolaris development, I might want to enable this delete-history, just in case I rm a .c file that I need. But I don't w

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-11 Thread David Magda
On Jun 11, 2006, at 03:21, can you guess? wrote: My dim recollection is that TOPS-10 implemented its popular (but again <100%) undelete mechanism using the same kind of 'space- available' approach suggested here. It did, however, support explicit 'delete - I really mean it' facilities to he

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-11 Thread Casper . Dik
>Hmm, I think I'd rather see this built into programs, such as 'rm', rather >than into the filesystem itself. > >For example, if I'm using ZFS for my OpenSolaris development, I might want >to enable this delete-history, just in case I rm a .c file that I need. > >But I don't want to keep a histor

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-11 Thread Darren Reed
But it is likely that in at least some situations promiscuously retaining *everything* even for a limited time would be a real problem, and that in a lot more it would be at least sub-optimal. Creating a directory attribute inheritable by subdirectories and files controlling temporary undelete-

[zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-06-11 Thread can you guess?
Interesting thread - a few comments: Finite-sized validation checksums aren't a 100% solution either, but they're certainly good enough to be extremely useful. NetApp has built a rather decent business at least in part by providing less-than-100% user-level undo-style facilities via snapshots (

[zfs-discuss] Re: user undo

2006-05-26 Thread Anton B. Rang
>Anything that attempts to append characters on the end of the filename >will run into trouble when the file name is already at NAME_MAX. One simple solution is to restrict the total length of the name to NAME_MAX, truncating the original filename as necessary to allow appending. This does int