Peter Tribble wrote: > On Fri, 2006-03-24 at 00:12, Ben Rockwood wrote: >> 2) Perhaps I missed it, but I see no mention of SVM. > > I get the impression that zfs is a key component of the > install/upgrade/patch management story in the future. > > This is good, in the sense that zfs allows you to do > things differently - and in many cases, better. > > However, I think that hitching the whole new install to > the zfs bandwagon is a mistake. Tying the two together > makes the project bigger, and also hinders adoption - it's > bad enough trying to convince some customers that they > ought to start looking at S10 even now, and I can see a > large amount of reticence in adopting a new filesystem > by some customers and ISVs. It's not even been released > yet! >
I disagree with the view that tying the default closely to ZFS complicates the project. There are a number of things that ZFS simplifies for installation, and therefore simplifies for the user, and we have to support it whether it's the default or not. But I doubt it will prove a real hindrance to adoption - see below. > So I think that UFS - and SVM - are going to be around for > a long while. They're going to have to be dealt with on > upgrade systems, at the very least. > Yes, we'll have to deal with upgrades of UFS and SVM, and continue supporting them for quite some time. Selecting them for a *new* install is likely to go into an advanced user path, though. I think that's appropriate, in that they're for old hands who want to stick with the tried & true and know Solaris already. The newbies, who we hope will grow to outnumber the existing base, should learn the better way. Dave
