On 05/11/2007, Richard Elling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Shawn Walker wrote: > > On 04/11/2007, Mike Gerdts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > >> With zfs root, can compression be enabled? Given the relatively slow > >> > > > > Yes, but remember that enabling compression *after* the fact will only > > compress new blocks (if I remember correctly). There's currently no > > way to have it go back and compress the existing data (someone correct > > me if I'm wrong). > > > > > >> Has there already been discussion on the real name for the default > >> root zpool? As I am creating new file systems or changing parameters > >> on existing ones, zpl_slim doesn't just roll off the fingers. I > >> suspect that a few years from now "slim" will be a pleasant memory but > >> not something that we probably want in the name of all root pools. I > >> would suggest that the root pool be named "root" or "rp". A very > >> short name is desirable to make command output that displays zfs file > >> system lists more compact. > >> > > > > A subtle, but nice touch; I wholeheartedly agree. "rp", "zp", et al. > > are great suggestions. Keeping the name small and short is likely to > > save a lot of wasted keystrokes as well. > > > > > I'll disagree. Small names lead to confusion and confusion is the root of > operational evils. A descriptive name is more important than the character > count.
To which I will have to disagree and state that the longer a name is the easier it is to mistype it and the more annoying. There must be a compromise between descriptive and efficient. Small names do not always lead to confusion. -- Shawn Walker, Software and Systems Analyst http://binarycrusader.blogspot.com/ "We don't have enough parallel universes to allow all uses of all junction types--in the absence of quantum computing the combinatorics are not in our favor..." --Larry Wall _______________________________________________ indiana-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/indiana-discuss
