John Sonnenschein wrote: > On 6/24/07, Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Ian Murdock wrote: [snip] > > Or short: IMO it would be nice to keep support for alternatives in > > Solaris/OpenSolaris/Indiana alive... > > I agree, in as far as I personally think ZFS should be the default, > and we should build around that assumption while retaining the ability > to choose other options, with feature degredation. > > For example if we were to do a ZFS snapshot prior to upgrading or > installing a package, that feature is obviously not available with > other filesystems, but we shouldn't restrict ourselves to not doing it > just because UFS is braindead technology
Erm, not that I was talking about _QFS_, not UFS...and QFS is in some aspects even superiour to ZFS. IMO a stragegy which includes both filesystems (ZFS+QFS) may be better than focussing on ZFS alone, otherwise the weaker points of ZFS like high memory consumption (remember embedded systems with restricted memory, a LiveCD or older machines), bad NFS performance, additional CPU usage for checksums+metadata compression or the lack of user quotas may quickly become the archilles heel of the whole indiana project. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) [EMAIL PROTECTED] \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;) _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
