In article 90f71fcedeb5b45a5bed515862b8a...@hamnavoe.com,
Richard Miller 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
1) If it is upgraded to latest version of Snow Leopard (I think 10.6.3?),
will anything regarding 9vx.OSX break?
As far as I can tell, 9vx works fine on MacOSX 10.6.7.
Just a note that we've
In article inuqri$eqi$1...@panix1.panix.com,
Greg Comeau com...@comeaucomputing.com wrote:
In article insdeo$km5$1...@panix1.panix.com,
Greg Comeau com...@comeaucomputing.com wrote:
As mentioned in a post yesterday, we seem to have succeeded in getting
5c et al built. However, in resuming playing
On 04/16/11 23:49, Skip Tavakkolian wrote:
Linux has slowly become Windows-lite
Whatsoever it is, though GNU sucks, but the GNU/Linux is dominating the
markets:
http://mybroadband.co.za/news/software/19762-The-Linux-Microsoft-war-over.html
--
Balwinder S bdheeman DheemanRegistered
erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net writes:
It's not that obvious to me. A hard link is another name for a file,
uniquely identified by type,device,qid.
how do you specify the device? you can't without giving up
on per-process-group namespaces. i don't think there's any
way to
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:32 AM, smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
I got the impression, from what I read, that the kernel driver chooses
the device number.
what's a device number and why would we need one?
ron
Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com writes:
Ask yourself *why* do you need it. Is it just convenience
(what you are used to) or is there something you do that
absolutely requires hard links? Next compare the benefit
of hardlinks to their cost. It is worth it?
I'm trying to create a data structure
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 8:44 AM, smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
I'm trying to create a data structure in the form of a directed acyclic
graph (DAG). A file system would be an ideal way to represent the data,
except that P9 exposes no transaction to give a node more than one name.
warning:
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 15:44:32 - smi...@zenzebra.mv.com wrote:
Bakul Shah ba...@bitblocks.com writes:
Ask yourself *why* do you need it. Is it just convenience
(what you are used to) or is there something you do that
absolutely requires hard links? Next compare the benefit
of
You can overlay your naming
FS on top of an existing disk based FS. In effect each named
file in this naming FS maps to a canonical name of a disk
based file. You can implement linking via a ctl file or
something.
Is lnfs(4) a relevant example?
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 21:17:21 BST Richard Miller 9f...@hamnavoe.com wrote:
You can overlay your naming
FS on top of an existing disk based FS. In effect each named
file in this naming FS maps to a canonical name of a disk
based file. You can implement linking via a ctl file or
IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
namespace that spans multiple disks or nodes for increasing
data redundancy, file size beyond the largest disk size,
throughput (and yes, complexity).
that certainly does seem
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, erik quanstrom
quans...@labs.coraid.com wrote:
IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
namespace that spans multiple disks or nodes for increasing
data redundancy, file size beyond the
On Thu, 21 Apr 2011 16:17:50 PDT ron minnich rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 3:41 PM, erik quanstrom
quans...@labs.coraid.com wrote:
IIRC companies such as Panasas separate file names and other
metadata from file storage. One way to get a single FS
namespace that spans
that certainly does seem like the hard way to do things.
why should the structure of the data depend on where it's
located? certainly ken's fs doesn't change the format of
the worm if you concatinate several devices for the worm
or use just one.
This would be a long discussion :-)
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
could you please clarify? i'm not following along.
I'm at the end of a long day and not able to write a good explanation
of what they are thinking. :-)
ron
On Thu Apr 21 20:01:54 EDT 2011, rminn...@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 21, 2011 at 4:55 PM, erik quanstrom quans...@quanstro.net wrote:
could you please clarify? i'm not following along.
I'm at the end of a long day and not able to write a good explanation
of what they are thinking. :-)
16 matches
Mail list logo
