On 26/06/07, Peter Tribble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 6/24/07, Roland Mainz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Ian Murdock wrote:
> >
> > One thing I don't see on the requirements list is ZFS as the default
> > file system.
> >
> > This really needs to be there. It's one of the killer features of
> > Solaris, and we should make sure we use it to maximum advantage.
>
> I agree but it would be nice to keep some room for alternatives.
Indeed. I think it's also important to recognize that ZFS may not
be suitable in all circumstances.
For example, it's been completely unusable on a sparc system with ATA
drives (such as a sunblade 1500).
I'm sure I've seen other hardware configurations where it ends up
performing poorly.
And it's not reported to shine on 32-bit or memory constrained
systems.
And it's pretty fussy about data integrity. Yes, I know that's the
point, but that isn't going to stop the finger of blame being pointed
at ZFS when something craps out.
While I want zfs everywhere, I think we have to make sure we've
got a list of use cases where it might not be suitable and either
take steps to see that whatever bugs are causing the problems
get fixed or not use zfs in those cases.
Indeed. I call this the "RedHat Trap." RedHat has only ever encouraged
or supported the usage of one filesystem for their Enterprise
distribution (at last check): ext3.
"The right tool for the right job" as I've heard many times in life.
zfs may be awesome, but as pointed out by an engineer the other day,
it makes lots of assumptions about the hardware its running on (fast
CPUs, fast disks, and lots of bandwidth if I remember right).
--
"Less is only more where more is no good." --Frank Lloyd Wright
Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/
_______________________________________________
indiana-discuss mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
