On Fri, Nov 28, 2008 at 11:55 PM, Karl Vogel <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 14:45:31 -0500,
>>> I spewed something along the lines of:
> K> In my experience, completely new filesystems or operating systems need at
> K> least 5 years in the field to weed out all the weird corner-cases. I might
> K> trust ZFS on Sun hardware (*with* vendor support) at this point, but I'd
> K> wait awhile before trying it on anything else.
>>> On Fri, 28 Nov 2008 21:28:51 +0100,
>>> Wojciech Puchar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> said:
> W> if it will ever be good filesystem, it will be no longer ZFS. just the
> W> ideas is in big part wrong.
> I'm not trying to start a religious war, but at least one idea in ZFS is
> worth its weight in platinum: end-to-end file-integrity checks. ZFS can
> (and does) find and correct file errors introduced by disk firmware and
> media problems. With the sheer volume of stuff being stored these days,
> that capability (in any filesystem) is going to be crucial.
This is one of the main reasons i want to go with ZFS. Another would be the
filesystem level compression of the data. I have noticed that 3dmax
files (one of
the programs the company works with) are very "compressable" (from 50
Mb to ~ 7Mb).
> Karl Vogel I don't speak for the USAF or my company
> I think that's how Chicago got started. A bunch of people in New York
> said, "Gee, I'm enjoying the crime and the poverty, but it just isn't
> cold enough. Let's go west." --Richard Jeni
> email@example.com mailing list
> To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"
firstname.lastname@example.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "[EMAIL PROTECTED]"