... > >> 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? > > > > Warm and safe is definitely a nice feeling, of > course, but out in > > the real world of corporate purchasing it's just > one feature out of > > many 'nice to haves' - and not necessarily the most > important. In > > particular, if the *actual* risk reduction turns > out to be > > relatively minor, that nice 'feeling' doesn't carry > all that much > > weight. > > On the other hand, it's hard to argue for risk > *increase* (using > something else)...
And no one that I'm aware of was doing anything like that: what part of the "All things being equal" paragraph (I've left it in below in case you missed it the first time around) did you find difficult to understand? - bill ... > > All things being equal, of course users would opt > for even > > marginally higher reliability - but all things are > never equal. If > > using ZFS would require changing platforms or > changing code, that's > > almost certainly a show-stopper for enterprise > users. If using ZFS > > would compromise performance or require changes in > management > > practices (e.g., to accommodate file-system-level > quotas), those > > are at least significant impediments. In other > words, ZFS has its > > pluses and minuses just as other open-source file > systems do, and > > they *all* have the potential to start edging out > expensive > > proprietary solutions in *some* applications (and > in fact have > > already started to do so). This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
