On 3/30/07, Shawn Walker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Maybe, but they're far better at doing versioning and providing a history of changes.
I;d have to agree. I track 6000 blobs (OOo gzip files, pdfs and other stuff) in svn even with 1300 changesets over 3 years there is a marginal disk cost on the repository. The only issue is all the .svn directories, they add to the disk requirement on the client side. [EMAIL PROTECTED]:/export/svn] du -sh nicholas/ 712M nicholas/ [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/company] du --exclude="*.svn*" -sh 789M . [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/company] du -sh 1.6G . Yes the repository is smaller than the exported data set. :) [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/company] find . | grep -v svn | wc -l 6089 [EMAIL PROTECTED]:~/tmp/company] find . | wc -l 26151 Now if someone wants to build a revision control system on top of zfs
somehow, more power to them..
For something like a photo archive, zfs snapshots are likely to be more useful. The main advantage being over something like svn being able to remove snaps in the middle of a set. At the end of the day disk cost is cheap, it is the management cost you have to consider. Nicholas
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
