Darren J Moffat wrote: > Casper.Dik at Sun.COM wrote: > >> I don't know that I can argue for ksh93 versus any other shell, > >> but adding /sbin/ksh93 at least gives us one modern, more feature-rich > >> alternative to the bourne shell (/sbin/sh), for use as the root shell, > >> in JumpStart scripts, or in single-user mode, when dealing with filesystem > >> problems. > > > > I don't think that's a strong enough reason: > > > > - you can already use any shell as root shell; is /usr isn't > > mounted /sbin/sh is used instead. > > > > By this reasoning, we should add bash/zsh/tcsh/csh there too. > > > > If you have a separate /usr, well, you pretty much deserve the > > barebones system you get. > > .. and when we have ZFS boot it is very unlikely that you would be able > to have a / and /usr out of the same pool where / is available but /usr > is not. > > IMO /usr as a separate file system is a dead concept and is no longer > relevant, however the / /usr packaging split is not (it is an important > distinction).
I do not agree. ZFS is really not the solution for all problems. ZFS has great problems with performace, resource usage (the memory usage is excessive compared to both QFS and UFS) and lacks even basic features needed for HPC applications (like guranteed bandwith or moving the inode data on a seperate physical disk (for example QFS can do that)) - and baased on the discussions on zfs-discuss I think we will not see such features in the forseeable future. AFAIK Holger Berger and his team evaluated ZFS a while ago and their results were not promising (compared to XFS, QFS, VxFS, ReiserFS and a bunch of other filesystems on various operating systems). IMO the design and requirements should not depend on a specific filesystem. ---- Bye, Roland -- __ . . __ (o.\ \/ /.o) roland.mainz at nrubsig.org \__\/\/__/ MPEG specialist, C&&JAVA&&Sun&&Unix programmer /O /==\ O\ TEL +49 641 7950090 (;O/ \/ \O;)
