[Dirvish] Hauntingly similar to Dirvish

Bernd Haug haug at berndhaug.net
Sun Nov 11 00:23:20 UTC 2007


Petcher, Daniel wrote:
> Sure, they've got a pretty Apple-style GUI, some logic added to skip cache
> files, pre-configure the expiration process. and resume after a shut-down,
> but it's essentially the same idea we've been using for years.

To the best of my knowledge, no, it's quite sophisticated and uses the
file system change notification API; the same underlying mechanism that
Spotlight uses, but Time Machine uses an interface that's moved farther
out of the kernel.

For details on the facilities used,
http://arstechnica.com/reviews/os/mac-os-x-10-5.ars/7

> I'm not sure whether to feel validated or ripped-off. What do you think?

I'm not sure if you've been using Macs; but /I/ simply think that they
should start at writing one decent file system for that thing - i.e.,
the basics - before going overboard with luxury items like hyper-modern
backup systems.

HFS+ is unreliable (i.e., it loses data in situations other than
catastrophic hardware failure), it's slow, and it lacks import UNIX
semantics such as real hard links.
Apple UFS panics under high load and is not largefile-capable (at least
by default, I didn't investigate it at great detail because, well, it
panics anyway).

These BTW are also the reasons why I always needed to do my dirvish
backups to my Linux box.

Why anybody would trust them with the archive of all their work
mystifies me. With live data, less is at stake (just the delta to the
last Backup); with the archive, it's everything. And you'll likely only
notice corruption when the live copy is already down.

Yours, Bernd


More information about the Dirvish mailing list