On Sat, Nov 19, 2005 at 11:49:10AM -0800, Jonathan Ellis wrote: > On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 12:39:13 -0600, "Michael Halcrow" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > I agree that we could do better, and ZFS looks like a step in the > > right direction, but I would be skeptical of any suggestion that > > it is the best alternative we have at the moment. > > True, but I would be even more skeptical that <competing IBM technology> > is "the best."
I actually suggested building off Reiser4 to make an alternative, which is not a competing IBM technology. For a more in-depth critique of ZFS from someone who has looked through the code, take a look at this recent post to fsdevel: http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=linux-fsdevel&m=113243953111393&w=2 Mike .___________________________________________________________________. Michael A. Halcrow Security Software Engineer, IBM Linux Technology Center GnuPG Fingerprint: 419C 5B1E 948A FA73 A54C 20F5 DB40 8531 6DCA 8769 Collect call from Cthulhu, do you accept the charges?
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
/* PLUG: http://plug.org, #utah on irc.freenode.net Unsubscribe: http://plug.org/mailman/options/plug Don't fear the penguin. */
