> And again, I say take a look at the market today, figure out a percentage, > and call it done. I don't think you'll find a lot of users crying foul over > losing 1% of their drive space when they don't already cry foul over the > false advertising that is drive sizes today.
Perhaps it's quaint, but 5GB still seems like a lot to me to throw away. > In any case, you might as well can ZFS entirely because it's not really fair > that users are losing disk space to raid and metadata... see where this > argument is going? Well, I see where this _specious_ argument is going. > I have two disks in one of my systems... both maxtor 500GB drives, purchased > at the same time shortly after the buyout. One is a rebadged Seagate, one > is a true, made in China Maxtor. Different block numbers... same model > drive, purchased at the same time. > > Wasn't zfs supposed to be about using software to make up for deficiencies > in hardware? It would seem this request is exactly that... That's a fair point, and I do encourage you to file an RFE, but a) Sun has already solved this problem in a different way as a company with our products and b) users already have the ability to right-size drives. Perhaps a better solution would be to handle the procedure of replacing a disk with a slightly smaller one by migrating data and then treating the extant disks as slightly smaller as well. This would have the advantage of being far more dynamic and of only applying the space tax in situations where it actually applies. Adam -- Adam Leventhal, Fishworks http://blogs.sun.com/ahl _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
