--- erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote: |> So, if your apps have to be programmed to be |> versioning/consistency/checkmarking aware in any case, how |> would having a fancy Versioning filesystem be any better |> than using what we do now? |> (i.e. svn/hg/cvs/git on top of ZFS/btrfs/et al) |> ZFS at least makes significant practical advances by rolling |> the logical volume manager into the filesystem level, but |> I can't see any such advantage for a Versioning FS.
Given what I've read here. Then the advantage of /a/ versioning FS, would be to have calls that make it easy for the app to version/checkmark/rollback individual files, and not have to worry about the details on how that is handled. The FS can make multiple copies, or just store deltas as it sees appropriate. The app can look for matching "revision tags" and/or auto-rollback on corrupt files. So the magic FS a few people want (and I wouldn't mind) can't exist. But having an interface, AND getting apps to use it, when that is common enough between multiple OSes/FSes... So the problems are properly defining the interface (technical). Getting enough support between the "major" file systems (social), dealing with slow upgrading and backwards capability (time), and then finally getting enough apps using the interface (technical & social). _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
