very simple datastore reimplementation

[Paul Fox]

i'm afraid i need to ask one of those "i feel like i should know
the answer" questions: 

what's the relationship between olpcfs, as described in the
design (and prototype?) scott sent around last week, and the
"simplified datastore" prototyped by tomeu (and the topic of this
thread).  in particular, i'm having trouble figuring out how much
of each is "real", and whether they're separate or complementary
solutions to the same problem, or to different problems.  or maybe
one's a short-term solution, and the other long-term?

paul

c. scott ananian wrote:
 > On Thu, May 8, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti <mpgritti at gmail.com> wrote:
 > >  That's true. But I also think the FUSE layer will make a big
 > >  difference in this regard, at the point that it *might* be enough.
 > >
 > >  I agree anyway that more transparency at the raw file system level
 > >  would be desiderable and that we should figure out what are exactly
 > >  the tradeoffs there.
 > 
 > FWIW, the olpcfs design exposes as much as possible of the journal
 > functionality at the raw filesystem level.  The xattr metadata
 > associated with the file (backed up with standard tar, zip, etc tools)
 > is *exactly* the journal metadata, so there's no loss of data when
 > using standard tools & techniques.  I know I've made these points
 > before, so I'm not going to belabor them again.
 >  --scott
 > 
 > -- 
 >                          ( http://cscott.net/ )
 > _______________________________________________
 > Devel mailing list
 > Devel at lists.laptop.org
 > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel

=---------------------
 paul fox, pgf at foxharp.boston.ma.us (arlington, ma, where it's 70.9 degrees)