On Sat, Nov 08, 2008 at 09:58:09AM +0100, Juergen Hannken-Illjes wrote: > On Fri, Nov 07, 2008 at 07:45:53PM -0800, Bill Stouder-Studenmund wrote: > > On Fri, Oct 31, 2008 at 03:10:24PM -0400, Thor Lancelot Simon wrote: > > > code used the same notion of a "transaction"? I was very surprised > > > to see that wapbl brought in an a whole new idea of a "fs transaction" > > > when the snapshot code already seemed to have one. > > > > I think one issue is that wapbl predates fss. Yes, it only got released > > recently, but it is older. > > > > Also, I believe wapbl and fss really do have different ideas about what > > their transactions are. wapbl always needs to copy blocks and the snapshot > > code only needs to copy blocks if they change for the first time since the > > last snapshot. Likewise, wapbl never allocates blocks (it just writes a > > copy to the journal) and the snapshot code allocates new blocks in the fs. > > Snapshots don't have transactions. We have fstrans for file system > suspension and here it helps to get the file system into a consistent > and quiet state. Well, that clearly explins why they have different ideas of a transaction. :-) Take care, Bill
Attachment:
pgpEyua1PfIwr.pgp
Description: PGP signature