On 23 dec 2011, at 23:38, Chris Murphy <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > On Dec 23, 2011, at 3:35 PM, Chris Murphy wrote: > >> I'm not talking about big companies. I'm not talking about hundreds of >> terabytes. You are basically proposing a SAN for a single photographer or a >> single video workstation. And you're right, they would need a SAN on Mac OS >> because Mac OS lacks good storage management that exists for FREE to any >> Tom, Dick and Harry who downloads most any linux distribution because lvm is >> used by default in most of them. But Apple doesn't have that functionality. > > But instead of going with a SAN, because this is complicated and expensive > for a single photographer or videographer to accept, they most often will go > with a cobbled together series of disks and arrays without any organization, > with troublesome migration to new or larger disks, with a semi-fragile file > system directly connected to the workstation. And it gets them into trouble - > routinely. The most basic source of confusion is what drive their stuff is on. Well they could of course use ZFS to make a good solution. zpool's seems to be a perfect match here and if they are serious about data integrity and sort of suffer a bit from having lots of different disks to achive enough of storage space I could not think of a better solution than ZFS. Yes a command line manegement is nessesary but on the other hand it is remarkably easy to manage your zpool's and have zraid or/and mirrors to give redundance to the soup. ZFS is definitely not just a filesystem but very much a management instrument as well. // John Stalberg _______________________________________________ MacOSX-admin mailing list [email protected] http://www.omnigroup.com/mailman/listinfo/macosx-admin
