very simple datastore reimplementation

Tomeu Vizoso tomeu at tomeuvizoso.net
Fri May 9 12:50:04 EDT 2008


On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 4:19 PM, Bert Freudenberg <bert at freudenbergs.de> wrote:
>
> On 09.05.2008, at 18:11, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
>
>> On Fri, May 9, 2008 at 2:15 PM, Jim Gettys <jg at laptop.org> wrote:
>>> FUSE is great, but...
>>>
>>> It means interoperability must be an explicit planned-in-advance
>>> action:
>>> if a datastore is already on a removable device in your pocket, and
>>> you
>>> need to access something on a foreign system, you are stuck unless
>>> there
>>> is some minimal level of human interpretability of the file system...
>>>
>>> Instead, you have to dig up a system with FUSE/olpcfs installed, and
>>> then copy the files to a conventional file structure.
>>>
>>> This is the use case that's hard to get around.
>>
>> Ok, I think I see now where is the misunderstanding.
>>
>> In the first post in this thread, I tried to explain that this
>> proposal would use removable devices in the same way they are used in
>> other systems and that the DS would have nothing to do with them:
>>
>> [...] we get an useful replacement that lacks:
>>
>> - Support for mounting removable datastores. We have agreed on moving
>> to just list the files in removable devices, without the DS having
>> anything to do. Although extending the DS capacity with SD cards is an
>> interesting feature, it brings many non-trivial issues that make this
>> a longer term feature.
>>
>> [end of quote]
>>
>> Scott has given some hints about how olpcfs would store files in
>> removable devices, and I think that his proposal is sufficient for
>> you, right?
>
> I don't think that is what Jim was getting at. I think it's simply
> that if you copy the raw datastore files to another system for
> analysis / recovery / whatever, then that task would be greatly helped
> by readable filenames. A use case would be that Linux does not boot
> anymore but you type in some magic Forth words to copy the datastore
> to a USB drive.

Oh, got it now, then it's the "debuggability" requirement, right?

Tomeu



More information about the Devel mailing list