James Dickens wrote:
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
On 3/8/06, Jonathan Adams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
> > Bill Bradford wrote:
> > >I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> > >
> > >Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
> >
> > not true..
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Bill Bradford wrote:
> > I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> >
> > Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
>
> not true...
> 6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
> just putback on friday.
> --
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
> Bill Bradford wrote:
> >I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
> >
> >Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
>
> not true...
> 6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
> just putback on fri
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
Bill
On 3/8/06, Dennis Clarke <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
> fielsystem that I need with SVM and life
On 3/8/06, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
>
> On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
> fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on. Apply power and
> then walk away.
>
> On the other hand I can sit and wait a litt
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on. Apply power and
then walk away.
On the other hand I can sit and wait a little while for the build 36
codedrop. then I accept the risks
On 3/8/06, Bart Smaalders <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> UNIX admin wrote:
> >> Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
> >> performance
> >> fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
> >>
> >> Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
> >> quite a
> >> while; the work in build
UNIX admin wrote:
Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
performance
fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
quite a
while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into
th
UNIX admin wrote:
Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
the crypto
support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
yet even though
the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be encryption
> Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
> performance
> fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
>
> Many of us have been running ZFS in "production" for
> quite a
> while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into the first
> Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
> the crypto
> support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
> yet even though
> the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be encryption.
This mess
13 matches
Mail list logo
