* Nicolas Williams <Nicolas.Williams at Sun.COM> [2007-01-23 11:45]: > On Tue, Jan 23, 2007 at 08:20:22PM +0100, Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > > > (shred is already en route to handling similar to B. su is being > > > omitted based on an assessment that the cost of steps similar to A > > > would be uneconomic.) > > > > Isn't it the case that schred does not work on ZFS so why provide > > it at all? > > That's what I would think. It would be dangerous to provide a utility > like shred if it doesn't know to error out for files in ZFS. > > So it should least be modified to be ZFS aware. Since ZFS might not be > the only COW filesystem (think BSD 4.4 LFS) it may be a good idea to > come up with a generic interface for querying whether writes to a file > overwrite the same disk blocks or not.
Well, this seems like an entree to make my economic point. We cannot staff each OSS integration effort such that it could modify a significant subset of commands (or the system) to meet policies and/or advised changes on initial integration; the freeware team is at best able to choose to ship or omit components. (This choice means that, in some cases, dependencies will not be satisfied that might have been satisfied on other systems.) If an incoming set of bug reports/customer calls implies that additional investment is justified, then that team will have to come back to declare their new proposed interfaces. - Stephen -- Stephen Hahn, PhD Solaris Kernel Development, Sun Microsystems stephen.hahn at sun.com http://blogs.sun.com/sch/
