On Tue, Mar 07, 2006 at 11:49:40AM -0600, Les Mikesell wrote: > > I still say it is going to be a lot easier to change how backuppc works > > than it is going to be to find a filesystem that will deal with this very > > unusual use case well. > > All you'll do by trying is lose the atomic nature of the hardlinks. > You aren't ever going have the data at the same time you know all > of it's names so you can store them close together. Just throw in > lots of ram and let caching do the best it can.
Any reasonable SQL database would do this very well. Doing operations atomically is fundamental, and indexing diversely added data is an important feature. The caching doesn't generally help at all, because the nodes are only touched once, and that is very out of order. Dave ------------------------------------------------------- This SF.Net email is sponsored by xPML, a groundbreaking scripting language that extends applications into web and mobile media. Attend the live webcast and join the prime developer group breaking into this new coding territory! http://sel.as-us.falkag.net/sel?cmd=lnk&kid=110944&bid=241720&dat=121642 _______________________________________________ BackupPC-users mailing list BackupPC-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/backuppc-users http://backuppc.sourceforge.net/
