Hi.
> What I meant was the size of the file is already given via ls(1). So
> a recursive output that make sense and fit a manipulation via join(1)
> (to combine a srv/qid) and sort and uniq etc. could do the trick.
Not quite. On Unix (don't remember 'bout Plan 9 but I assume it's the
same) files
Don't worry cuzz, he's a Bwit.
On 16 January 2012 14:07, Winston Kodogo wrote:
> "It's not public?" read with rising intonation?
>
> Charles? I'd never have picked you as as a Kiwi?? But your rising
> intonation has given you away???
>
--
Don't meddle in the mouth -- MVS (0416935147, +1-513-
"It's not public?" read with rising intonation?
Charles? I'd never have picked you as as a Kiwi?? But your rising
intonation has given you away???
> Since ls(1) gives the size of the file; since du(1) can not really or at
> least not always in an arbitrary context tells the "real" occupation of
> disk size, is not ls(1) enough?
plan 9 ls does not have a -R option.
- erik
On Sat, Jan 14, 2012 at 09:20:51AM +, Charles Forsyth wrote:
>[...] On Linux, I
> never use ls -R, partly because I'm
> running p9p's ls, but mainly because the default format of /bin/ls -R is
> amazingly useless (even worse than I remembered).
I wasn't refering to whatever implementation (I d
On 15 January 2012 14:25, erik quanstrom wrote:
> I've used the interface
> > you claim it doesn't exist. It's not public? ...
>
> well then, please provide a pointer if this is a public interface.
I think he was saying you might not know about it because it isn't public,
although he's used it
> sits on top of ZFS, right? Well, when you're doing this you have to be
> careful around this content-addressed thing. I've used the interface
> you claim it doesn't exist. It's not public? Why is this relevant to
well then, please provide a pointer if this is a public interface.
the reason why
> you've confused the internal implementation
> with the public programming interface.
The properties we're discussing here (dedup, fragmentation,
performance) are an artifact of the implementation, not of the
interface. Fossil+Venti would perform the same if Venti exported its
interface only to F
On Sat Jan 14 18:46:44 EST 2012, ara...@mgk.ro wrote:
> >> > How come? With venti, the address is the SHA-1 hash, with ZFS, you get
> >> > to chose the hash, but it can still be a hash.
> >>
> >> because in zfs the hash is not used as an address (lba).
> >
> > True.
>
> As I said, neither in Venti
