Re: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

Hal Merritt wrote: Why should we convert? Why shouldn't we convert? HFS is stabilized. All new enhancements appear in zFS only. It runs a 7734 of a lot faster too! -- Edward E Jaffe Phoenix Software International, Inc 5200 W Century Blvd, Suite 800 Los Angeles, CA 90045 310-338-0400 x318

ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

What's the groups' feel for ZFS? Why should we convert? Why shouldn't we convert? Any gotcha's? z/os.e 1.7. Thanks!! The very best of the season to you, yours, and theirs. NOTICE: This electronic mail message and any files transmitted with it are intended

ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

Why shouldn't we convert? No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by making zFS'es VSAM. That means we have to go back to having SMS-managed, non-esoterically cataloged filesystems. Not good for those folks who like to clone their filesystems just like any other

Re: ZFS: good, bad, or ugly?

Huh? My root filesystem is a zFS and it is *not* SMS managed. Brian On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 16:48:08 -0700, Lucymarie Ruth wrote: Why shouldn't we convert? No good reason not to, but IBM is making us take a step backward by making zFS'es VSAM. That means we have to go back to having