Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
the crypto
support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
yet even though
the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be encryption.
This message
Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
performance
fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
Many of us have been running ZFS in production for
quite a
while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into the first Solaris
UNIX admin wrote:
Depends on your definition of soon when it comes to
the crypto
support. There is no funded and agreed on roadmap
yet even though
the project exists in opensolaris.org land.
If there is one essential feature that ZFS currently lacks, I believe that
feature would be
UNIX admin wrote:
Build 36 has a big wad of ZFS changes including many
performance
fixes, FMA support, error handling, etc.
Many of us have been running ZFS in production for
quite a
while; the work in build 36 is a big step forward.
Yeah but the question is, will these be backported into
the
On Wed, 8 Mar 2006, Dennis Clarke wrote:
On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
fielsystem that I need with SVM and life goes on. Apply power and
then walk away.
On the other hand I can sit and wait a little while for the build 36
codedrop. then I accept the
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
Bill
On 3/8/06, Dennis Clarke [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On the one hand I can just install Solaris 10 Update 1 and create the
fielsystem that I need with SVM and life
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
--
stephen lau // [EMAIL PROTECTED] | 650.786.0845 | http://whacked.net
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
--
Does this
On 3/8/06, Jonathan Adams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Mar 08, 2006 at 01:30:47PM -0800, Stephen Lau wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062
James Dickens wrote:
On 3/8/06, Stephen Lau [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bill Bradford wrote:
I'd rather run straight UFS than have to ever deal with SVM/SDS again.
Unfortunately, zfs-boot is a ways down the road. 8-(
not true...
6374062 mountroot support needed for ZFS
just putback on friday.
11 matches
Mail list logo
