> Turnaround question - why *should* ZFS define an underlying > storage arrangement at the filesystem level?
It would be nice to provide it at the directory hierarchy level, but since file systems in ZFS are cheap, providing it at the file system level instead might be reasonable. (I say "might be" only because it does complicate administration to have multiple file systems to enable this.) Since RAID-Z reads are fairly expensive, it's undesirable for files which are primarily accessed with small reads (or writes which trigger read-modify-write cycles). In some applications, it would be useful to be able to specify that particular files should be stored with mirroring rather than RAID-Z. (You already get this for the smallest files, because of how RAID-Z works.) Consider an image archive which stores images and an index. The images should clearly be in RAID-Z format for storage efficiency. The index, which is updated as each image is stored, would be more efficient in RAID-1. Anton This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
