>Boy, y'all misunderstood what this proposal was about: > > _augment_, not replace.
*sigh* > >I've tapped a raw vein of dislike of SMF, a blinding dislike. It was not my intention to start a flamewar; not should you infer that I dislike SMF. It has, however, some rough edges that I think we need to address before we continue blindly where we seem to be going now. >(Though I'm quite interested in the UFS/SMF/SQLite reliability thread. >I blame UFS though. ZFS boot, we need you.) I don't think that it is justified to blame UFS; if you build on top of quicksand without proper foundation, it is YOUR fault the building collapses. It is sometimes difficult to understand the intricacies of doing UFS I/O safely but when you create a database engine you MUST take due care and attention (and if you use that database engine, you MUST check that it works properly). UFS as a root filesystem at the time of building SMF was a given; so it must work and be reliable in that context. Casper
