From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: "H. Peter Anvin" Subject: Re: Versioning file system Date: Mon, 18 Jun 2007 09:56:39 -0700 Message-ID: <4676B947.4010707@zytor.com> References: <4676B4B9.9030002@hawkeye.stone.uk.eu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Cc: Bryan Henderson , alan , linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org, linux-fsdevel@vger.kernel.org, akpm@linux-foundation.org, viro@zeniv.linux.org.uk To: Jack Stone Return-path: Received: from terminus.zytor.com ([192.83.249.54]:53046 "EHLO terminus.zytor.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1756677AbXFRQ5O (ORCPT ); Mon, 18 Jun 2007 12:57:14 -0400 In-Reply-To: <4676B4B9.9030002@hawkeye.stone.uk.eu.org> Sender: linux-fsdevel-owner@vger.kernel.org List-Id: linux-fsdevel.vger.kernel.org Jack Stone wrote: >> >> Later, I discovered what I think are superior alternatives: RCS-style >> version management on top of the filesystem, and automatic versioning >> based on time instead of count of "modifications." For example, make a >> copy of every changed file every hour and keep it for a day and keep one >> of those for a week, and keep one of those for a month, etc. This works >> even without snapshot technology and even without sub-file deltas. But of >> course, it's better with those. > > From what I can see this seems to be the consesus (and it sound very > sensible to me). > > The question remains is where to implement versioning: directly in > individual filesystems or in the vfs code so all filesystems can use it? > More likely a shim filesystem on top would be a better option. -hpa