At Thu, 17 Jun 2004 00:01:51 +0200,
marco_g wrote:
>
> Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Today, 3 hours, 44 minutes, 10 seconds ago, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> >> I also have the feeling that there are other designs that can provide
> >> an alternative or supplement to this (mmh, p
Ludovic Courtès <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Today, 3 hours, 44 minutes, 10 seconds ago, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
>> I also have the feeling that there are other designs that can provide
>> an alternative or supplement to this (mmh, persistence?
>> check-pointing? Versioning?)
>
> Yes, persistenc
Hi,
Today, 3 hours, 44 minutes, 10 seconds ago, Marcus Brinkmann wrote:
> I also have the feeling that there are other designs that can provide
> an alternative or supplement to this (mmh, persistence?
> check-pointing? Versioning?)
Yes, persistence (ie. application and kernel state checkpointin
On Wed, Jun 16, 2004 at 08:57:18PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> The main problem to consider here is how to prevent the journal to get
> filled too quickly. Consider a 1GB file which you drastically change. That
> means you will have a 1GB transaction. Normally a journal is a lot smaller.
The
Marcus Brinkmann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Not just for a server OS. Any OS would get rock solid from it. The problem
>> that a crashing computer kills your installation is only partly gone with
>> journalling as in ext3. With transactions there is no way a crash can destroy
>> the system,
At Wed, 16 Jun 2004 16:46:41 +0200,
Bas Wijnen wrote:
>
> [1 ]
> [1.1 ]
> On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:18:35PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> > This is a really important feature for a server os to have, IMHO.
>
> Not just for a server OS. Any OS would get rock solid from it. The problem
> that
On Tue, Jun 15, 2004 at 11:18:35PM +0200, Marco Gerards wrote:
> This is a really important feature for a server os to have, IMHO.
Not just for a server OS. Any OS would get rock solid from it. The problem
that a crashing computer kills your installation is only partly gone with
journalling as i
"Alfred M. Szmidt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>> Then do so.
>
>I might, if someone else doesn't before me. Because I'm not going
>to do it now (see below.)
>
> Someone hacked together a jfs translator once... You could base your
> work on that.
Which was based on the jfsutils.
It
> Then do so.
I might, if someone else doesn't before me. Because I'm not going
to do it now (see below.)
Someone hacked together a jfs translator once... You could base your
work on that.
The mailinglist is slow, you probably have the message now.
Got it.
They're very nice de
Bas Wijnen <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Now what I mean is not ext3. That is only part of it. The journal of ext3
> makes sure that the filesystem itself cannot corrupt (as long as there is no
> hardware failure.) What I mean is a system that makes sure the database of an
> application cannot
On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 08:42:34 +0300
Ognyan Kulev <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> When I work on ext2 or ext3, bugs in Hurd/GNUMach often slow me down,
> sometimes a lot. What I want to say is that stable foundation is much
> more important than fancy stuff, because fancy stuff is developed very
> h
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 09:48:40PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>>I think they should be implemented in the Hurd.
>>
>> Would you like todo this?
>
>Yes, I would.
>
> Then do so.
I might, if someone else doesn't before me. Because I'm not going to do it
now (see below.)
>
Bas Wijnen wrote:
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:24:25PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
I think they should be implemented in the Hurd.
Would you like todo this?
Yes, I would. But as Ognyan says:
But we are far away from all that, and IMHO we should first finish
porting to L4 before dealing with suc
>I think they should be implemented in the Hurd.
>
> Would you like todo this?
Yes, I would.
Then do so.
But as Ognyan says: But we are far away from all that, and IMHO we
should first finish porting to L4 before dealing with such stuff.
Where does he say this? I can't see
On Mon, Jun 14, 2004 at 07:24:25PM +0200, Alfred M. Szmidt wrote:
>I think they should be implemented in the Hurd.
>
> Would you like todo this?
Yes, I would. But as Ognyan says:
But we are far away from all that, and IMHO we should first finish
porting to L4 before dealing with such stuff.
I think they should be implemented in the Hurd.
Would you like todo this?
___
Bug-hurd mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-hurd
Bas Wijnen wrote:
While we're talking about "what really should be supported", I have an other
idea. I went to a lecture about smartcard filesystems some time ago and it
was partly about journalling filesystems. I think they should be implemented
in the Hurd.
I'm implementing
Hi,
While we're talking about "what really should be supported", I have an other
idea. I went to a lecture about smartcard filesystems some time ago and it
was partly about journalling filesystems. I think they should be implemented
in the Hurd.
Now what I mean is not ext3. Th
18 matches
Mail list logo
