On May 1 2007 19:43, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
><[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
>> good file system.
>
>Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:
>
>REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
shut it p
Hi andrew, it seems that lkml has contacted both of my email accounts
and cripped them.
I can no longer recieve email from lkml on this account.
I can neither recieve or send email to lkml from my other account.
They have also just deleted the 4 emails I sent to lkml from the page
http://lkml.o
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:
REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.
You can read more here:
http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs
2007/5/2, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> ZFS may be inappropriate.
Functional, but it's a new files
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> ZFS may be inappropriate.
Functional, but it's a new filesystem with not as much time-tested
experience
On Apr 30, 7:50 am, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Most of the people who have been cheerleading for either ZFS or
Reiser4 don't seme to have the necessary technical skills, alas.
- Ted
Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is
Matthias Andree <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Reiser4 doesn't appear to work anywhere except with Linux AFAICT, and
> being able to move storage between operating systems sure looks
> interesting...
Not very, actually, unless you're thinking about "portable" devices
which use things like FAT16 fo
On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Wang wrote:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
>
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?
Reiser4 doesn't appear to work anywhere except with Linux AFAICT, and
being able t
Once upon a time, Theodore Tso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
>The people who want ZFS have in mind certain features, such as the
>ability to scale to very large sizes, and ease of use when
>administering filesystems that span multiple disks (ZFS subsumes the
>device-mapper/RAID layer in Solaris, so th
On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0800, Andrew Wang wrote:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
>
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?
The people who want ZFS have in mind certain features, such as
Andrew Wang wrote:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
>
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?
Please take your content-free cheerleading to the local grade school
football game.
Jeff
-
T
On Apr 30 2007 02:18, Andrew Wang wrote:
>
>ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
>good file system.
>
>Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
>ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?
Do we?
>I know that ReiserFS4 breaks Linux coding standards.
>However, even if Sun
ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
good file system.
Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?
I know that ReiserFS4 breaks Linux coding standards.
However, even if Sun releases ZFS under GPL, we still
need to port it to the Lin
13 matches
Mail list logo
