I can't make heads or tails of this statement:
On 7/5/07, thad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Most of the time SAs has to design VGs and LVs sizes that can be vis-a-vis
> cope
> with the backup system.
That said, nowadays people use dedicated SATA arrays to back up their
precious data. Since dri
No doubt that storage drive are already available to accommodate this
size. But the reality of having a backup system to do the job for this
big size in a limited window hours is a different story. Most of the
time SAs has to design VGs and LVs sizes that can be vis-a-vis cope
with the backup syste
On Wed, 4 Jul 2007 17:33:30 -0400
thad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope the features of jfs2 will be added to jfs. Its neat in
> increasing and decreasing the file system online, no need to unmount.
Plain JFS has this feature already, as do XFS and ReiserFS, at least as
far as growing a filesy
That's not really true. Hitachi now makes a single drive which has 1TB
of capacity. So 32TB is not impractical anymore, there are a lot of
disk arrays out there which can contain 30 drives.
On 7/5/07, thad <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> I hope the features of jfs2 will be added to jfs. Its neat in
I hope the features of jfs2 will be added to jfs. Its neat in
increasing and decreasing the file system online, no need to unmount.
And also storage support up to 32TB which at this is not practical to
use because there is no available backup system for such huge amount
of data :D
On 7/2/07, Orlan
Let's also not forget about licensing and patent issues for zfs on
linux: http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066
zfs on linux is way too alpha and zfs with fuse is practically
useless, except to play with at the moment.
fyi and a tad off topic: if you wanna play with zfs (other than using
solaris
simple and quick answer:
ZFS is battle-tested on Solaris. ditto for ext3 and JFS on Linux.
i don't think any significant enterprise would risk their production
data on such a Frankenstein :-P
They would all go with the vendor-certified and -validated stand-alone
filesystems, running on a suffici
JM Ibanez <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I wouldn't go for ZFS until it's integrated into kernel proper instead
> of via FUSE). Too much performance concerns to worry about -- and the
> possibility of the user mode FUSE daemon dying. Not for / at
> least.
How does ZFS compare to, say, a bundle of
8 matches
Mail list logo
