Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:14:18 +0000 From: Brian Somers <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> To: Mikael Karpberg <karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cyclic filesystem (WAS: Re: truss, trace ??) Message-ID: <199701150114.BAA18113@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> In-Reply-To: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:07:05 %2B0100." <199701140207.DAA12321@ocean.campus.luth.se>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> No matter what you might think of this, in terms of uggliness of such a hack,
> I think it would be a really nice extention to the normal file system, if
> it could be done, or as a new file system which is basically an FFS/UFS
> (whatever it is we use) with the modification of a file being able to be set
> cyclic on it.
>
> I mean, it's not a completely "clean" way of doing it, but it would suffice
> to keep log and debug files from filling filesystems, which is enough.
> If you logfile is about 10MB, do you care if it's 10000000 bytes or 10345620
> bytes? Not very often.
I'd favour the new filesystem type idea - for lots of reasons. It could be
binary compatible with a ufs - the only driver implementation difference would
be that truncate() is the only call that will alter its size - write() would
be cyclic.
--
Brian <brian@awfulhak.demon.co.uk>, <brian@freebsd.org>
<http://www.awfulhak.demon.co.uk/>;
Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199701150114.BAA18113>