Yodel! On Monday 13 December 2010 13.25:06 Paul Slootman wrote: > On Sun 12 Dec 2010, Adrian von Bidder wrote: > > Please consider the attached patch. (against 1.2.1) > > > > Storing the dirvish trees in btrfs snapshots instead of using rsync's > > -- > > > link-deest option makes sense, IMO, because: > You're forgetting that there still is a LOT more than linux out there. > Dirvish is used on all sorts of unixen. They don't have the advantage of > btrfs. > > Hence I'm wondering whether it's advisable to integrate this into > dirvish, or to create a new tool based on btrfs. After all it's quite a > different approach to the problem.
The patch changes the code in a few quite small places (to optionally replace mkdir / rm -rf by btrfs calls if btrfs option is set), and if the "btrfs" option is not switched on, it's a noop. The default behaviour is not changed. All the rest stays exactly the same, I don't see a big difference. Dirvish still probides the whole framework to call rsync, do logging, error handling, expiry, which it does very well. (And: Isn't ZFS another FS with cow snapshots? So perhaps I do a variant of the patch with an option "cow" that could be empty or set to "btrfs"?) cheers -- vbi -- Today is Boomtime, the 55th day of The Aftermath in the YOLD 3176
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
_______________________________________________ Dirvish mailing list [email protected] http://www.dirvish.org/mailman/listinfo/dirvish
