Miles Nordin wrote: >>>>>> "nw" == Nicolas Williams <nicolas.willi...@sun.com> writes: > > > nw> You're not required to go with one-filesystem-per-user though! > > It was pitched as an architectural advantage, but never fully > delivered, and worse, used to justify removing traditional Unix > quotas. Consequently, quota-wise, ZFS becomes a regression w.r.t. UFS > rather than an evolution, because of over-focusing on the virtues of > the architecture rather than the delivered implementation. > >
Precisely. The issues for quotas, for ZFS on a per user basis was pointed out several years ago at FAST, when some of the Sun folks showed up to discuss ZFS in a late evening meeting. A file system per user approach is not very viable when you have tens of thousands of users. It was my hope that Sun would get that message by now, as I consider it one of the major problems with ZFS. _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
