On Mon, 2005-11-28 at 13:34, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Robert Lunnon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > The simplicity of administering ZFS is far over everything else. All other > > systems seem to have usability problems, even the windows practice of > > rooting > > all drives in the same place isn't particularly convenient especially when > > it breaks all you shortcuts. I think ZFS gives all the benefits of unix > > filesystem semantics without the drawbacks. > > The "simplicity" of administration has it's drawbacks at the points where > ZFS in incompatible with the UNIX philosohy (mount handling) and causes extra > effort in order to make it usable for e.g. the SchillIX life CD.
Thats what legacy mount points are for. Some times progress needs to be made and not everything in the original UNIX philosohy's makes sense anymore. To me the old UNIX mount handling is even more broken than rc.local or sysvinit was and ZFS is to the old UNIX mount handling what SMF is to rc.local ans sysvinit. Have you every tried managing a system with 10000 (yes 4 zeros) UFS/SVM/VxFS/VxVM mounts all of which are shared via NFS (that was 15TB of storage and this was in 1999) ? I've assisted on such machines and I can tell you in no uncertain terms that after SVM and VxVM the next biggest headaches on that machine were /etc/vfstab and /etc/dfs/dfstab. With ZFS that machine will be so much easier to manage. -- Darren J Moffat _______________________________________________ opensolaris-discuss mailing list opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
