Date: 26 Mar 97 15:38:18 -0600 From: "Richard Wackerbarth" <rkw@dataplex.net> To: "Warner Losh" <imp@village.org> Cc: stable@freebsd.org Subject: Re: SUP Message-ID: <AF5EF36E-1DA1D@204.69.236.50>
next in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On Wed, Mar 26, 1997 1:55 PM, Warner Losh <mailto:imp@village.org> wrote: >That's true. I just wanna know what the most supported way is at the >moment. I don't have a problem switching to something else as long as >it has approx the same charactersitics as sup: relatively low latency, >gets the whole tree, etc, etc. I'm thinking of actually moving it >over to CTM I feel certain that both CVSup and CTM will be around for some time. They each have characteristics which make them superior to the other for certain "customers". I would STRONGLY encourage EVERYONE to use CTM rather than CVSup if they are routinely updating (be it daily or weekly). CTM has the advantage of being both "push" technology and "store and forward". Its drawbacks are that it does not do dynamic recovery of partially trashed trees and that it updates only periodically. However, there are very few individuals who do not have direct access to freefall and really need updates more than once or twice a day. As for rebuilding partially trashed trees, I would argue that it that is necessary other than on extremely rare occasions, the user is not practicing "safe hex" and should change their methodology.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?AF5EF36E-1DA1D>