On Sat, 2005-11-12 at 14:54 -0800, Hans Reiser wrote:
> David Masover wrote:
> 
> >Ming Zhang wrote:
> >  
> >
> >>On Fri, 2005-11-11 at 16:56 -0800, Peter van Hardenberg wrote:
> >>
> >>    
> >>
> >>>On November 11, 2005 05:59 am, John Gilmore wrote:
> >>>
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>>>Does anybody remember GoBack? It was a versioning
> >>>>system for windows 95/98 that was incredibly flexible and useful. Tracked
> >>>>all changes to the whole disk. Old versions of a file? no problem. grab an
> >>>>old version of a directory for referance temporarily? easy. Got a virus?
> >>>>revert the whole HD, and then grab the newer copies of your documents and
> >>>>saved games as needed.
> >>>>        
> >>>>
> >>>My thoughts on this:
> >>>
> >>>The versioning would be an audit plugin. When the file is modified, tag 
> >>>the 
> >>>current version, copy it into a sub-directory (oh, I don't know, say 
> >>>file/.revisions/<number/date>), and disable write access to it. You might 
> >>>not 
> >>>even need extended filesystem attributes for this, but they would be handy 
> >>>for tagging particular versions.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>if a file is opened, modified 2 times, then closed. u will only generate
> >>1 version right? so "When the file is modified" is inaccurate.
> >>    
> >>
> one could do it for every file close, and that could be a state option
> for the versioning plugin, but most users will want to do it everytime
> they touch filename/..../checkin

what u mean touch filename? is "ls" a touch? i think close, unlink,
create, is likely to be good candidate.

> 
> >
> >How about "When the transaction was completed?"  Why does it matter?
> >
> >  
> >
> >>>Copy-on-write would make this action extremely cheap, only adding a couple 
> >>>of 
> >>>extra writes to make it work.
> >>>      
> >>>
> >>add 1 line at the beginning of a 100MB text file will make this uncheap.
> >>    
> >>
> >
> >Who has to work with 100 meg text files?  And why has this person not
> >broken them down into 100 kilobyte text files?  Storage efficiency isn't
> >really an issue there...
> >  
> >
> you need cross-version compression for this case. 

what u mean cross-version compression? interesting name. :P

ming

> 
> >Anyway, I think the main win is from copy-on-write for the whole file.
> >
> >
> >
> >  
> >
> 

Reply via email to