From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Vitaly Fertman Subject: Re: http://www.namesys.com/snapshots/2004.08.03-internal.testing/ Date: Wed, 4 Aug 2004 14:34:41 +0400 Message-ID: <200408041434.41816.vitaly@namesys.com> References: <200406150022.34578.vitaly@namesys.com> <4110A38A.7040807@namesys.com> <20040804095513.GL1284@nysv.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Return-path: list-help: list-unsubscribe: list-post: Errors-To: flx@namesys.com In-Reply-To: <20040804095513.GL1284@nysv.org> Content-Disposition: inline List-Id: Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: Markus =?koi8-r?q?T=F6rnqvist?= , Hans Reiser Cc: reiserfs-list@namesys.com On Wednesday 04 August 2004 13:55, Markus T=F6rnqvist wrote: > On Wed, Aug 04, 2004 at 01:51:22AM -0700, Hans Reiser wrote: > >These blocks refers to blocks that were used by files and are now backup > >super blocks? These blocks could be critical database files, etc.? > > Seems to me like yes, but Reiser4 hasn't launched yet officially, so > I somehow doubt people will have anything too critical on Reiser4. > > I'm at least preparing myself to take backups of everything. > > >If yes, then please pull this off our website until you come up with a > >scheme that I am sure will not create more user problems than it solves, > >on average. > > Yeah, there is the other hand that said that the online format is > now set in stone... > > Still the important question is, what's the net gain of this new format? the previous bakup layout had backup block locations depending on the fs=20 size, in other words every resize operation may need to relocate some nodes= =20 in the tree to other blocks if the current ones are needed for the backup -= -=20 even on expanding. there are no such problems with the current backup layou= t. --=20 Thanks, Vitaly Fertman