From owner-freebsd-hackers Tue Jan 14 18:16:09 1997 Return-Path: Received: (from root@localhost) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) id SAA27385 for hackers-outgoing; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:16:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (awfulhak.demon.co.uk [158.152.17.1]) by freefall.freebsd.org (8.8.4/8.8.4) with ESMTP id SAA27202 for ; Tue, 14 Jan 1997 18:15:12 -0800 (PST) Received: from awfulhak.demon.co.uk (localhost.coverform.lan [127.0.0.1]) by awfulhak.demon.co.uk (8.8.4/8.7.3) with ESMTP id BAA18113; Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:14:18 GMT Message-Id: <199701150114.BAA18113@awfulhak.demon.co.uk> X-Mailer: exmh version 1.6.9 8/22/96 To: Mikael Karpberg cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Cyclic filesystem (WAS: Re: truss, trace ??) In-reply-to: Your message of "Tue, 14 Jan 1997 03:07:05 +0100." <199701140207.DAA12321@ocean.campus.luth.se> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Date: Wed, 15 Jan 1997 01:14:18 +0000 From: Brian Somers Sender: owner-hackers@freebsd.org X-Loop: FreeBSD.org Precedence: bulk > 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 , Don't _EVER_ lose your sense of humour....