those restrictions are not necessary
On 20 May 2012 04:13, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
This last point is more or less independent of the FS (as long
as an io buffer is page aligned and io count is a multiple of
page size).
we don't compute on file servers
On 20 May 2012 04:13, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
When you suddenly need
lots of memory for some memory intensive computation, it may
be too late to evacuate the memory of your FS data
On May 20, 2012, at 5:13 AM, Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com wrote:
How often would you flush to disk? You still need to worry about the order
of writing metadata.
that's the nice thing. it's so simple I don't have to worry about order. you
write new
blocks and, once all of them reached
On Sat, 19 May 2012 00:45:58 +0200 Francisco J Ballesteros n...@lsub.org
wrote:
Just curious.
If the tree doesn't fit in memory, how do you decide who to
kick out? LRU? Sounds much like a cache fs. What does it buy
you over existing cache filesystems? Speaking more generally,
not just
Because I noticed Ken's worm fs was being discussed in this thread, I thought
I might just drop here the man page for a new alternate file server that we
wrote
for nix.
It's not yet ready for use (I'm using it, but it's still under testing, and the
version
in the main nix tree is now out of
On Fri, 18 May 2012 23:13:54 +0200 Nemo n...@lsub.org wrote:
Creepy is a prototype file server for Nix. It maintains a
mutable file tree with unix semantics, kept in main memory,
served through 9P, see intro(5), and through IX.
Creepy? It has become a creepy word
