From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org via listexpand id S261575AbTJWFUl (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:20:41 -0400 Received: (majordomo@vger.kernel.org) by vger.kernel.org id S261656AbTJWFUk (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:20:40 -0400 Received: from TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp ([210.143.35.52]:26275 "EHLO TYO202.gate.nec.co.jp") by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S261575AbTJWFUj (ORCPT ); Thu, 23 Oct 2003 01:20:39 -0400 To: andersen@codepoet.org Cc: Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu, linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Subject: Re: srfs - a new file system. References: <20031022045708.GA5636@codepoet.org> <200310221605.h9MG5k37007196@turing-police.cc.vt.edu> <20031022193849.GA21188@codepoet.org> Reply-To: Miles Bader System-Type: i686-pc-linux-gnu Blat: Foop From: Miles Bader Date: 23 Oct 2003 14:20:21 +0900 In-Reply-To: <20031022193849.GA21188@codepoet.org> Message-ID: MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Sender: linux-kernel-owner@vger.kernel.org X-Mailing-List: linux-kernel@vger.kernel.org Erik Andersen writes: > Not so much a potential BitKeeper customer, as pointing out that > the distributed filesystems prople are attacking the same > fundamental problem as the distributed version control folks. It may be the same at some level, but there's an important difference: distributed filesystems are usually (AFAIK) attempting to maintain the illusion of a single global filesystem that looks more or less to the users like a local filesystem, and usually just an average unixy filesystem. This is very, very, hard... Distributed version control systems, OTOH, because they're at a somewhat higher level, have the huge advantage of distinct operational boundaries which are exposed the user and can be used to manage the distribution. Since users are used to these boundaries, and they usually occur at fairly obvious and reasonable places, this isn't such a burden on the users. -Miles -- 97% of everything is grunge