Hello can,
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
cyg On the other hand, there's always the possibility that someone
cyg else learned something useful out of this. And my question about
To be honest - there's basically nothing useful in the thread,
perhaps except one thing -
People.. for the n-teenth time, there are only two ways to kill a troll. One
involves a woodchipper and the possibility of an unwelcome visit from the FBI,
and the other involves ignoring them.
Internet Trolls:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll
http://www.linuxextremist.com/?p=34
Hello can,
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
cyg On the other hand, there's always the
possibility that someone
cyg else learned something useful out of this. And
my question about
To be honest - there's basically nothing useful in
the thread,
perhaps except one
Would you two please SHUT THE F$%K UP.
Dear God, my kids don't go own like this.
Please - let it die already.
Thanks very much.
/jim
can you guess? wrote:
Hello can,
Thursday, December 13, 2007, 12:02:56 AM, you wrote:
cyg On the other hand, there's always the
possibility that someone
Would you two please SHUT THE F$%K UP.
Just for future reference, if you're attempting to squelch a public
conversation it's often more effective to use private email to do it rather
than contribute to the continuance of that public conversation yourself.
Have a nice day!
- bill
This
(apologies if this gets posted twice - it disappeared the first time, and it's
not clear whether that was intentional)
Hello can,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second
Hello can,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg detailed
Hello can,
I haven't been wasting so much time as in this thread... but from time
to time it won't hurt :)
More below :)
Wednesday, December 12, 2007, 4:46:42 PM, you wrote:
Hello Bill,
I know, everyone loves their baby...
cyg No, you don't know: you just assume that everyone is as biased
...
Bill - I don't think there's a point in continuing
that discussion.
I think you've finally found something upon which we can agree. I still
haven't figured out exactly where on the stupid/intellectually dishonest
spectrum you fall (lazy is probably out: you have put some effort in to
Look, it's obvious this guy talks about himself as if he is the person
he is addressing. Please stop taking this personally and feeding the troll.
can you guess? wrote:
Bill - I don't think there's a point in continuing
that discussion.
I think you've finally found something upon
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mists of time.
Hello can,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg detailed
On 11-Dec-07, at 9:44 PM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello can,
...
What some people are also looking for, I guess, is a black-box
approach - easy to use GUI on top of Solaris/ZFS/iSCSI/etc. So they
don't have to even know it's ZFS or Solaris. Well...
Pretty soon OS X will be exactly that -
On Tue, 11 Dec 2007, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello can,
Tuesday, December 11, 2007, 6:57:43 PM, you wrote:
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg least have to describe *how*
Hello can,
Monday, December 10, 2007, 3:35:27 AM, you wrote:
cyg and it
made them slower
cyg That's the second time you've claimed that, so you'll really at
cyg least have to describe *how* you measured this even if the
cyg detailed results of those measurements may be lost in the mists of
grand-dad,
why don't you put your immense experience and knowledge to contribute
to what is going to be
the next and only filesystems in modern operating systems, instead of
spending your time asking for specifics and treating everyone of
ignorant..at least we will remember you in the after
can you guess? wrote:
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
And you've been able to do so for almost three
decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the
...
I remember trying to help customers move
their
applications from
TOPS-20 to VMS, back in the early 1980s, and
finding
that the VMS I/O
capabilities were really badly lacking.
Funny how that works: when you're not familiar
with something, you often mistake your own
why don't you put your immense experience and
knowledge to contribute
to what is going to be
the next and only filesystems in modern operating
systems,
Ah - the pungent aroma of teenage fanboy wafts across the Net.
ZFS is not nearly good enough to become what you suggest above, nor is it
from the description here
http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
so who cares here ?
RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data
repository
Since David begins his description with the statement RMS stands for Record
Management Services. It is the underlying file
from the description here
http://www.djesys.com/vms/freevms/mentor/rms.html
so who cares here ?
RMS is not a filesystem, but more a CAS type of data repository
On Dec 8, 2007 7:04 AM, Anton B. Rang [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
NOTHING anton listed takes the place of ZFS
That's not surprising,
can you run a database on RMS?
I guess its not suited
we are already trying to get ride of a 15 years old filesystem called
wafl, and a 10 years old file system called Centera, so do you thing
we are going to consider a 35 years old filesystem now... computer
science made a lot of improvement
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do so
for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and direct I/O
are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
I guess its not suited
And you guess wrong: that's
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do
so for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
Funny, I remember
can you guess? wrote:
can you run a database on RMS?
As well as you could on must Unix file systems.
And you've been able to do so for almost three
decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and
direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix
environment).
nny, I
I believe the data dedup is also a feature of NTFS.
--
Darren J Moffat
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
NOTHING anton listed takes the place of ZFS
That's not surprising, since I didn't list any file systems.
Here's a few file systems, and some of their distinguishing features. None of
them do exactly what ZFS does. ZFS doesn't do what they do, either.
QFS: Very, very fast. Supports
You have me at a disadvantage here, because I'm
not
even a Unix (let alone Solaris and Linux)
aficionado.
But don't Linux snapshots in conjunction with
rsync
(leaving aside other possibilities that I've never
heard of) provide rather similar capabilities
(e.g.,
incremental backup
There are a category of errors that are
not caused by firmware, or any type of software. The
hardware just doesn't write or read the correct bit value this time
around. With out a checksum there's no way for the firmware to know, and
next time it very well may write or read the correct bit
You have me at a disadvantage here, because I'm not
even a Unix (let alone Solaris and Linux) aficionado.
But don't Linux snapshots in conjunction with rsync
(leaving aside other possibilities that I've never
heard of) provide rather similar capabilities (e.g.,
incremental backup or
Once again, profuse apologies for having taken so long (well over 24 hours by
now - though I'm not sure it actually appeared in the forum until a few hours
after its timestamp) to respond to this.
can you guess? wrote:
Primarily its checksumming features, since other
open source solutions
If you ever progress beyond counting on your fingers
you might (with a lot of coaching from someone who
actually cares about your intellectual development)
be able to follow Anton's recent explanation of this
(given that the higher-level overviews which I've
provided apparently flew
So name these mystery alternatives that come anywhere
close to the protection,
If you ever progress beyond counting on your fingers you might (with a lot of
coaching from someone who actually cares about your intellectual development)
be able to follow Anton's recent explanation of this
Darren,
Do you happen to have any links for this? I have not seen anything
about NTFS and CAS/dedupe besides some of the third party apps/services
that just use NTFS as their backing store.
Thanks!
Wade Stuart
Fallon Worldwide
P: 612.758.2660
C: 612.877.0385
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on
can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much reason
to care, since the available solutions don't need to be *identical* to offer
*comparable* value
On Wed, Dec 05, 2007 at 09:45:55PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much
reason to care, since the available solutions don't need to be
If you
can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is that there's not much reason
to care, since the available solutions don't need to be *identical* to offer
*comparable* value (i.e.,
Whoever coined that phrase must've been wrong, it should definitely be By
billtodd you've got it.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
For the same reason he won't respond to Jone, and can't answer the original
question. He's not trying to help this list out at all, or come up with any
real answers. He's just here to troll.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
As I explained, there are eminently acceptable
alternatives to ZFS from any objective standpoint.
So name these mystery alternatives that come anywhere close to the protection,
functionality, and ease of use that zfs provides. You keep talking about how
they exist, yet can't seem to come
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
the comment above about no *real* opensource software
alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
snapshotting caught my eye.
There is an open source alternative
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 12/06/2007 09:58:00 AM:
On Dec 6, 2007 1:13 AM, Bakul Shah [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Note that I don't wish to argue for/against zfs/billtodd but
the comment above about no *real* opensource software
alternative zfs automating checksumming and simple
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread ..
Why do you feel any need to? If you were contributing posts as completely
devoid of technical content as some of the morons here have recently been
submitting I could understand it, but my impression is that the purpose of this
forum is to
can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is
that there's not much reason to care, since the
available solutions don't need to be *identical* to
offer *comparable*
(Can we
declare this thread
dead already?)
Many have already tried, but it seems to have a great deal of staying power.
You, for example, have just contributed to its continued vitality.
Others seem to care.
*identical* to offer *comparable* value (i.e., they
each have
different
The 45 byte score is the checksum of the top of the tree, isn't that
right?
Yes. Plus an optional label.
ZFS snapshots and clones save a lot of space, but the
'content-hash == address' trick means you could potentially save
much more.
Especially if you carry around large files (disk
STILL haven't given us a list of these filesystems you say match what zfs does.
STILL coming back with long winded responses with no content whatsoever to try
to divert the topic at hand. And STILL making incorrect assumptions.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
can you guess? wrote:
There aren't free alternatives in linux or freebsd
that do what zfs does, period.
No one said that there were: the real issue is
that there's not much reason to care, since the
available solutions don't need to be *identical* to
offer *comparable* value
I
suspect ZFS will change that game in the future.
In
particular for someone doing lots of editing,
snapshots can help recover from user error.
Ah - so now the rationalization has changed to
snapshot support.
Unfortunately for ZFS, snapshot support is pretty
commonly available
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
As I said in the post to which you responded, I
consider ZFS's ease of management to be more
important (given that even in high-end installations
storage management costs dwarf storage equipment
costs) than its real but relatively
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and there
is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being paid by
NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue to try to downplay features of
zfs and the community will counter...and on and on.
This
my personal-professional data are important (this is
my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's incremental
risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you actually did so you'd likely be
surprised at how little
trolling
can you guess? wrote:
he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger
O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
voices offer different counsel.
While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
(that's an
On 5-Dec-07, at 4:19 AM, can you guess? wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
question
becomes just how it compares with equally
inexpensive
current and potential
On 4-Dec-07, at 9:35 AM, can you guess? wrote:
Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this
thread.
I never said I was a typical consumer.
Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which
you quoted (and hence to which it was apparently responding).
I have budget constraints then I can use only user-level storage.
until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git, but none of them is designe
d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be versioned, some to be unversioned.
I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the final response is
-discuss@opensolaris.org
In-Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Yager on ZFS
List-Id: zfs-discuss.opensolaris.org
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
I was trying to get you
to evaluate ZFS's
incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if
you actually
did so you'd likely be surprised at how little
difference it makes
- at least if you're at all rational about
assessing it).
ok .. i'll bite since there's no ignore
That would require coming up with something solid. Much like his
generalization that there's already snapshotting and checksumming that exists
for linux. yet when he was called out, he responded with a 20 page rant
because there doesn't exist such a solution. It's far easier to condescend
On Dec 5, 2007, at 17:50, can you guess? wrote:
my personal-professional data are important (this is
my valuation, and it's an assumption you can't
dispute).
Nor was I attempting to: I was trying to get you to evaluate ZFS's
incremental risk reduction *quantitatively* (and if you
he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger
O frabjous day! Yet *another* self-professed psychic, but one whose internal
voices offer different counsel.
While I don't have to be psychic myself to know that they're *all* wrong
(that's an advantage of fact-based rather than faith-based
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
[... reformatted ]
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response
and there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he
isn't being paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The troll will continue
to try to downplay
...
Hi bill, only a question:
I'm an ex linux user migrated to solaris for zfs
and
its checksumming;
So the question is: do you really need that
feature (please
quantify that need if you think you do), or do you
just like it
because it makes you feel all warm and safe?
can you guess? wrote:
Primarily its checksumming features, since other open source solutions
support simple disk scrubbing (which given its ability to catch most
deteriorating disk sectors before they become unreadable probably has a
greater effect on reliability than checksums in any
On Tue, 4 Dec 2007, Stefano Spinucci wrote:
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
question
becomes just how it compares with equally
inexpensive
current and potential
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, can you guess? wrote:
snip reformatted .
Changing ZFS's approach to snapshots from block-oriented to
audit-trail-oriented, in order to pave the way for a journaled
rather than shadow-paged approach to transactional consistency
(which then makes data
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Al Hopper wrote:
On Wed, 5 Dec 2007, Eric Haycraft wrote:
[... reformatted ]
Why are we still feeding this troll? Paid trolls deserve no response and
there is no value in continuing this thread. (And no guys, he isn't being
paid by NetApp.. think bigger) The
Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious BS you keep spewing.
Rather than answer a question, which couldn't be answered, because you were
full of it, you tried to convince us all he really didn't know what he wanted.
The assumption sure made an a$$ out of someone, but you should
I have budget constraints then I can use only
user-level storage.
until I discovered zfs I used subversion and git,
but none of them is designe
d to manage gigabytes of data, some to be
versioned, some to be unversioned.
I can't afford silent data corruption and, if the
final
apologies in advance for prolonging this thread .. i had considered
taking this completely offline, but thought of a few people at least
who might find this discussion somewhat interesting .. at the least i
haven't seen any mention of Merkle trees yet as the nerd in me yearns
for
On Dec
what are you terming as ZFS' incremental risk reduction?
I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say, UFS, XFS,
or ext3.
Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each case, and the
probability of each such situation.
Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state with
authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
question that he posed rather than something else.
In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
attempting (however unskillfully) to twist my
On Dec 6, 2007, at 00:03, Anton B. Rang wrote:
what are you terming as ZFS' incremental risk reduction?
I'm not Bill, but I'll try to explain.
Compare a system using ZFS to one using another file system -- say,
UFS, XFS, or ext3.
Consider which situations may lead to data loss in each
Literacy has nothing to do with the glaringly obvious
BS you keep spewing.
Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were capable of understanding what
I've been talking about (or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this forum with
Actually, it's central to the issue: if you were
capable of understanding what I've been talking about
(or at least sufficiently humble to recognize the
depths of your ignorance), you'd stop polluting this
forum with posts lacking any technical content
whatsoever.
I don't speak full of
Now, not being a psychic myself, I can't state
with
authority that Stefano really meant to ask the
question that he posed rather than something else.
In retrospect, I suppose that some of his
surrounding phrasing *might* suggest that he was
attempting (however unskillfully) to twist
I suppose we're all just wrong.
By George, you've got it!
- bill
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Your response here appears to refer to a different post in this thread.
I never said I was a typical consumer.
Then it's unclear how your comment related to the material which you quoted
(and hence to which it was apparently responding).
If you look around photo forums, you'll see an
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real question
becomes just how it compares with equally inexpensive
current and potential alternatives (and that would
make for an interesting
On 11/7/07, can you guess?
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
wrote:
However, ZFS is not the *only* open-source
approach
which may allow that to happen, so the real
question
becomes just how it compares with equally
inexpensive
current and potential alternatives (and that would
make for an
I never said I was a typical consumer. After all, I bought a $1600 DSLR.
If you look around photo forums, you'll see an interest the digital workflow
which includes long term storage and archiving. A chunk of these users will
opt for an external RAID box (10%? 20%?). I suspect ZFS will
[Zombie thread returns from the grave...]
Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment,
though,
given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and
a
large percentage of those neither back up their
data,
nor use RAID to guard against
Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment, though,
given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and a
large percentage of those neither back up their data,
nor use RAID to guard against media failures, nor
protect it effectively from
On 29-Nov-07, at 2:48 PM, Tom Buskey wrote:
Getting back to 'consumer' use for a moment, though,
given that something like 90% of consumers entrust
their PC data to the tender mercies of Windows, and a
large percentage of those neither back up their data,
nor use RAID to guard against media
On 11/29/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Xserve + Xserve RAID... ZFS is already in OS X 10.5.
As easy to set up and administer as any OS X system; a problem free
and FAST network server to Macs or PCs.
That is a great theory ... we have a number of Xserves with
Xraids. No ZFS
On 29-Nov-07, at 4:09 PM, Paul Kraus wrote:
On 11/29/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Xserve + Xserve RAID... ZFS is already in OS X 10.5.
As easy to set up and administer as any OS X system; a problem free
and FAST network server to Macs or PCs.
That is a great theory ...
On 11/29/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That is a great theory ... we have a number of Xserves with
Xraids. No ZFS on Mac OS X (yet),
10.5.
Last I looked they were only supporting read only ZFS under
10.5. Also, based on the experiences of a number of my coworkers,
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:28:47PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the brain damage of RAID-5.
Nope.
A decent RAID-5 hardware implementation has no 'write hole' to worry about,
and one can make a software implementation similarly robust with
Brain damage seems a bit of an alarmist label. While you're certainly right
that for a given block we do need to access all disks in the given stripe,
it seems like a rather quaint argument: aren't most environments that
matter trying to avoid waiting for the disk at all? Intelligent prefetch
can you guess? billtodd at metrocast.net writes:
You really ought to read a post before responding
to it: the CERN study
did encounter bad RAM (and my post mentioned that)
- but ZFS usually can't
do a damn thing about bad RAM, because errors tend
to arise either
before ZFS ever
Hello can,
Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:54:21 AM, you wrote:
cyg The major difference between ZFS and WAFL in this regard is that
cyg ZFS batch-writes-back its data to disk without first aggregating
cyg it in NVRAM (a subsidiary difference is that ZFS maintains a
cyg small-update log which
On 11/15/07 9:05 AM, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Hello can,
Thursday, November 15, 2007, 2:54:21 AM, you wrote:
cyg The major difference between ZFS and WAFL in this regard is that
cyg ZFS batch-writes-back its data to disk without first aggregating
cyg it in NVRAM (a
...
Well, ZFS allows you to put its ZIL on a separate
device which could
be NVRAM.
And that's a GOOD thing (especially because it's optional rather than requiring
that special hardware be present). But if I understand the ZIL correctly not
as effective as using NVRAM as a more general kind
Adam Leventhal wrote:
On Thu, Nov 08, 2007 at 07:28:47PM -0800, can you guess? wrote:
How so? In my opinion, it seems like a cure for the brain damage of RAID-5.
Nope.
A decent RAID-5 hardware implementation has no 'write hole' to worry about,
and one can make a software implementation
can you guess? billtodd at metrocast.net writes:
You really ought to read a post before responding to it: the CERN study
did encounter bad RAM (and my post mentioned that) - but ZFS usually can't
do a damn thing about bad RAM, because errors tend to arise either
before ZFS ever gets the
some business do not accept any kind of risk
Businesses *always* accept risk: they just try to minimize it within the
constraints of being cost-effective. Which is a good thing for ZFS, because it
can't eliminate risk either, just help to minimize it cost-effectively.
However, the subject
...
And how about FAULTS?
hw/firmware/cable/controller/ram/...
If you had read either the CERN study or what I
already said about
it, you would have realized that it included the
effects of such
faults.
...and ZFS is the only prophylactic available.
You don't *need* a
can you guess? wrote:
at the moment only ZFS can give this assurance,
plus
the ability to
self correct detected
errors.
You clearly aren't very familiar with WAFL (which
can do the same).
...
so far as I can tell it's quite
irrelevant to me at home; I
can't
On 9-Nov-07, at 2:45 AM, can you guess? wrote:
Au contraire: I estimate its worth quite
accurately from the undetected error rates reported
in the CERN Data Integrity paper published last
April (first hit if you Google 'cern data
integrity').
While I have yet to see any checksum
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.
1 - 100 of 149 matches
Mail list logo
