4 ms·
Sorry my not-so-good English sometimes make me express concept in a convoluted/wrong way, on my previous post s/no/not much/ (different) than ext, it's an inter
by xte 8y ago
Sorry my not-so-good English sometimes make me express concept in a convoluted/wrong way, on my previous post s/no/not much/ (different) than ext, it's an interesting project however today is only that IMO a thing to follow, prize, support but not use regularly apart if you want to help it's developments...
On logging overhead... Well, yes and no, the logfs I tried do have overhead at garbage collection/cleaning but that overhead does not seems really important in practical terms. It demand a bit of careful design of storage layout and load prediction but nothing more than that.
I do not see practical advantage for most server usage however I see significant advantage for some server usage and certainly for desktop usage. Also potential future development is certainly interested... Imaging a package manager integrated with a logfs how effective can be only in terms of "immutable servers/IaC" applications, imaging how NixOS/GuixSD generations can easily and instantly switch, how can you deep and easily analyze datasets and systems...
Also overhead is there, a bit, today, but tomorrow can be significantly reduced if we have physical storage developed with logging in mind.