David Scheidt wrote:
>
> On Fri, 3 Mar 2000, Michael Bacarella wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Upon reading of Microsoft's fabulous innovations in the filesystem arena,
> > I started playing with some ideas of my own (not to be confused with
> > ORIGINAL ideas)
> >
> > Can someone tell me why copy-on-write filesystems would be bad?
>
> It wouldn't be. This is how NetApp do their .snapshot direcotries. I think
> they have some white papers on it on their website. It's very handy.
Kirk McKusick is implementing a Copy-on write functionality
for UFS. It is used in conjunction with Soft updates to produce
snapshots. It's not what you asked for, but still relevant
I think. One problem with "Copy-on-write, when applied to
file copies is that you need to assign the blocks up front, even if you
don't copy the data, as otherwise you could run out of space
when the copy is actually needed.
How many files would actually benefit from this? We already symlink and
hardlink quite a few of them..
Julian
>
> David
>
> To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
--
__--_|\ Julian Elischer
/ \ [EMAIL PROTECTED]
( OZ ) World tour 2000
---> X_.---._/ presently in: Perth
v
To Unsubscribe: send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
