Re: [Tux3] Tux3 report: A Golden Copy

["Justin P. Mattock" <justinmattock@gmail.com>]

Martin Steigerwald wrote:
> Am Mittwoch 31 Dezember 2008 schrieb Justin P. Mattock:
>   
>> Martin Steigerwald wrote:
>>     
>>> Am Mittwoch 31 Dezember 2008 schrieb Justin P. Mattock:
>>>       
>>>> Daniel Phillips wrote:
>>>>         
>>>>> On Tuesday 30 December 2008 23:34, sniper wrote:
>>>>>           
>>>>>> Great, I have mounted tux3 filesystem under UML with stuffs in
>>>>>> this mail, but I still can't debug it with gdb. Anyone gives me
>>>>>> suggestion?
>>>>>>             
>>>>> You just have to give a "cont" command a bunch of times and you
>>>>> will eventually get to a command prompt.  The reason for this is,
>>>>> uml uses the segfault interrupt as part of its machine simulation,
>>>>> and there is no exsiting way for uml and gdb to communicate in such
>>>>> a way that uml can recognize that the interrupt came from its own
>>>>> code and filter it.
>>>>>           
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>       
>>>> Hmm.. seems like a redundancy;
>>>> Anyways I looked at you're site, but am still
>>>> confused at what tux3 is: what is tux3?
>>>>
>>>> (at first I thought it was  a  video game, but was wrong);
>>>> can I use tux3 to secure a linux system or is it for
>>>> something else?
>>>>         
>>> Hmmm, I thought
>>>
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> Tux3 is a write-anywhere, atomic commit, btree-based versioning
>>> filesystem. It is the spiritual and moral successor of Tux2, the most
>>> famous filesystem that was never released. The main purpose of Tux3
>>> is to embody Daniel Phillips's new ideas on storage data versioning.
>>> The secondary goal is to provide a more efficient snapshotting and
>>> replication method for the Zumastor NAS project, and a tertiary goal
>>> is to be better than ZFS.
>>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>>> http://tux3.org/
>>>
>>> was pretty clear. What are you missing?
>>>
>>> Ciao,
>>>       
>> I guess this is what is confusing to me:
>> atomic commit, btree-based versioning.
>>     
>
> Ah, the buzz words. ;)
>
> The tux3 mailing list contains quite some design notes about these 
> concepts. I think others can give better answers about these concepts - I 
> think I understood what it is for, not the implementation details. But 
> basically "atomic commit" is a strategy to have the filesystem always in 
> a consistent state and btree-based versioning allows to keep different 
> versions of a file / directory around. And unlike other filesystem tux3 
> has this per inode and not for the complete filesystem. At least if I 
> understand correctly.
>
> But at least it should clear that tux3 is a filesystem and not a video 
> game ;).
>
>   
>> irregardless about how it's worded,
>> I'm wondering if I should use this mechanism,
>> or not.
>>     
>
> Right now its still in heavy development and not of release quality. I.e. 
> something to play around and test with if you want. 
>
> Ciao,
>   
Yeah, my bad for thinking tux3 was a video game
(don't ask why); I need to get glasses!!
When I was told it was a filesystem it clicked.
As for the atomic commit Thanks for explanation.
(I honestly had no idea what that meant);
with test and playing around with this, I have
an old dell inspiron hanging around, when
I have the time I'll have to give it a try.
Do I have to wipe out the ext3 partition
on it, or is that O.K.

regards;

Justin P. Mattock