On 10/20/2012 01:10 AM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 3:46 PM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net
> <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>> wrote:
> On 10/19/2012 09:58 PM, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
> > On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 5:29 AM, Arne Jansen <sensi...@gmx.net
> > <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net <mailto:sensi...@gmx.net>>> wrote:
> > We have finished a beta version of the feature. A webrev for it
> > can be found here:
> > http://cr.illumos.org/~webrev/sensille/fits-send/
> > It adds a command 'zfs fits-send'. The resulting streams can
> > currently only be received on btrfs, but more receivers will
> > follow.
> > It would be great if anyone interested could give it some testing
> > and/or review. If there are no objections, I'll send a formal
> > webrev soon.
> > Please don't bother changing libzfs (and proliferating the copypasta
> > there) -- do it like lzc_send().
> ok. It would be easier though if zfs_send would also already use the
> new style. Is it in the pipeline already?
> > Likewise, zfs_ioc_fits_send should use the new-style API. See the
> > comment at the beginning of zfs_ioctl.c.
> > I'm not a fan of the name "FITS" but I suppose somebody else already
> > named the format. If we are going to follow someone else's format
> > though, it at least needs to be well-documented. Where can we
> find the
> > documentation?
> > FYI, #1 google hit for "FITS": http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FITS
> > #3 hit: http://code.google.com/p/fits/
> > Both have to do with file formats. The entire first page of google
> > results for "FITS format" and "FITS file format" are related to these
> > two formats. "FITS btrfs" didn't return anything specific to the file
> > format, either.
> It's not too late to change it, but I have a hard time coming up with
> some better name. Also, the format is still very new and I'm sure it'll
> need some adjustments.
> > --matt
> I'm sure we can come up with something. Are you planning on this being
> solely for ZFS, or a larger architecture for replication both directions
> in the future?
We have senders for zfs and btrfs. The planned receiver will be mostly
filesystem agnostic and can work on a much broader range. It basically
only needs to know how to create snapshots and where to store a few
It would be great if more filesystems would join on the sending side,
but I have no involvement there.
I see no basic problem in choosing a name that's already in use.
Especially with file extensions most will be already taken. How about
something with 'portable' and 'backup', like pib or pibs? 'i' for
zfs-discuss mailing list