http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, 10 Jun 2009, Rodrigo E. De León Plicet wrote:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS
Maybe Apple will drop the server version of OS-X and will eliminate
their only server hardware (Xserve) since all it manages to do is lose
money
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server
application.
It's funny, but I suspect you just called a large portion of the mac
userbase lunatics.. While my reasons my differ I wouldn't disagree ;)
./C
___
That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle)
purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their
price point and capabilities. You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and
mirror them for what comparable arrays of the time cost.
-Aaron
On Wed, Jun 10, 20
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blew wrote:
> That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle)
> purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of their
> price point and capabilities. You easily could buy two Xserve RAIDs and
> mirror them for what comp
On 10-Jun-09, at 7:25 PM, Alex Lam S.L. wrote:
On Thu, Jun 11, 2009 at 2:08 AM, Aaron Blew
wrote:
That's quite a blanket statement. MANY companies (including Oracle)
purchased Xserve RAID arrays for important applications because of
their
price point and capabilities. You easily could buy
It's not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit read-only)
is already in currently shipping MacOS 10.5. SO presumably it'll
be in MacOS 10.6...
--
Rich Teer, SCSA, SCNA, SCSECA
URLs: http://www.rite-group.com/rich
http://www.linkedin.com/in/richteer
There is a pretty active apple ZFS sourceforge group that provides RW
bits for 10.5.
Things are oddly quiet concerning 10.6. I am curious about how this
will turn out myself.
Jerry
Rich Teer wrote:
It's not pertinent to this sub-thread, but zfs (albeit read-only)
is already in currently s
On 11 jun 2009, at 10:48, Jerry K wrote:
There is a pretty active apple ZFS sourceforge group that provides
RW bits for 10.5.
Things are oddly quiet concerning 10.6. I am curious about how this
will turn out myself.
Jerry
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the
On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
usage of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use
filesystem compression.
Neither
On 11 jun 2009, at 11:48, Sami Ketola wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
usage of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
Either they have implemented compressed binarie
On 11 Jun 2009, at 10:52, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
On 11 jun 2009, at 11:48, Sami Ketola wrote:
On 11 Jun 2009, at 12:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
usage of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compre
Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk usage
of Snow Leopard
is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of compression.
Either they have implemented compressed binaries or they use filesystem
compression.
Neither feature is present in Leopard
On Jun 11, 2009, at 05:44, Paul van der Zwan wrote:
Strange thing I noticed in the keynote is that they claim the disk
usage of Snow Leopard is 6 GB less than Leopard mostly because of
compression.
It's probably 6 GB because Leopard (10.5) ran on both Intel and
PowerPC chips ("Universal"
14 matches
Mail list logo
