| mikosullivan wrote:
>As for the undelete ability, it could be done without
>disrupting the defragmentation routines of the system by
>reworking the delete routine itself. Instead of unlinking
>the file, the file is moved into a trash folder (each user
>account has its own trash folder). The trash bin can be
>cleaned out manually and/or a cron job can clean out files
>that are x days old.
Even better, take advantage of all that empty space on a modern hard drive. Only delete a file from the trash if a more important process needs the space. (A more important process would be defined as anything that asks for space, even swap or temp). In fact, go ahead and mirror the entire directory structure to a deleted file to ease the recovery of it. Purge the deleted files on an lru basis as free space is needed, and show the space used for deleted files as free space. This way a file would be available in the waste bin for as long as possible, and easy to find and recover.
So users are saying "No undelete is bad", rather than just matching the low bar set by MS, leap over it and provide an excellent data recovery system for them and say, "Not only do we have undelete, but we have a better undelete function than those redmond loosers." |
