On 14-Nov-07, at 12:43 AM, Jason J. W. Williams wrote: > Hi Darren, > >> Ah, your "CPU end" was referring to the NFS client cpu, not the >> storage >> device CPU. That wasn't clear to me. The same limitations would >> apply >> to ZFS (or any other filesystem) when running in support of an NFS >> server. >> >> I thought you were trying to describe a qualitative difference >> between >> ZFS and WAFL in terms of data checksumming in the on-disk layout. > > Eh...NetApp can just open WAFL to neuter the argument... ;-) Or I > suppose you could just run ZFS on top of an iSCSI or FC mount from the > NetApp. > > The problem it seems to me with criticizing ZFS as not much different > than WAFL, is that WAFL is really a networked storage backend, not a > server operating system FS. If all you're using ZFS for is backending > networked storage, the "not much different" criticism holds a fair > amount of water I think. However, that highlights what's special about > ZFS...it isn't limited to just that use case. Its the first server OS > FS (to my knowledge) to provide all those features in one place, and > that's what makes it revolutionary. Because you can truly use its > features in any application with any storage. Its on that basis I > think that placing ZFS and WAFL on equal footing is not a strong > argument.
That was my thinking, and better put than I could, thankyou. --Toby > > Best Regards, > Jason > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
