>>>>> "jm" == Moore, Joe <joe.mo...@siemens.com> writes:
jm> Sysadmins should not be required to RTFS.
I never said they were. The comparison was between hardware RAID and
ZFS, not between two ZFS alternatives. The point: other systems'
behavior is enitely secret. Therefore, secret opaque undiscussed
right-sizing is the baseline. The industry-wide baseline is not
guaranteeing to use the whole disk no matter what, nor is it building
a flag-ridden partitioning tool with bikeshed HOWTO documentation into
zpool full of multi-paragraph Windows ExPee-style CYA ``are you SURE
you want to use the whole disk, because blah bla blahblah blha
blaaagh'' modal dialog box warnings.
This overdiscussion feels like the way X.509 and IPsec grow and grow,
accomodating every feature dreamed up by people who don't have to
implement or live with the result because each feature is so important
that some day it'd be disastrous not to have it.
jm> There isn't a need to explain the feature to the user? That's
jm> one of the most irresponsible responses I've heard lately.
It's fine if you disagree, but the disastrous tone makes no sense.
Other filesystems and RAID layers consume similar amounts of space for
metadata, labels, bitmaps, whatever. The suggestion is neither
surprising nor harmful, especially compared to the current behavior.
anyway probably none of it matters because of the IDEMA sizes, and the
rewrite/evacuation feature that will hopefully be done a couple years
from now.
pgpfv3oyMNGsm.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
