> > > because your usage pattern is not what we had in mind > for MTBufs. > > As the target for > 1TB UFS was intended to be > databases and > specifically Oracle the nbpi was set at 1MByte (which > at the time we > considered quite low) MTBUFS was never intended to be > used by most > customers, only databases and other users that > require a few very large > files - another reason is that some 3rd party backup > tools had a 2TB > limit for their output files so only applications > that had their own > backup technology could sensibly use MTBUFS and fully > protect their data. > > The expectation at the time was that MTBUFS would be > a short term fix > to a specific problem (I.e. Oracle) and that ZFS > would deal with the > more general case - fortunately it will allow very > large numbers of files and not > require an fsck equivalent so after a system crash it > will come back > immediately. > zfs sounds like an really good fs, but i don't think it will be stable and tested enough for production systems before 2007 > > Remember MTBUFS was *not* intended for the average > user, it *was* > intended for Oracle and a few other customers who > wanted a few very > large files, e.g. Oil industry data and possibly > multi media (though > they often use QFS)--- > big companys can also afford veritas or samfs or whatever for their systems. in my case i dont want to spend money on that, because as soon as zfs is stable, i have no use for it anymore. but it's disappointing that a so called "server os" has no fs with acceptable multiterabyte support in 2006. concerning to this matter, linux is much more advanced with fs like xfs or reiser.
anyway it seems that i have to wait for zfs. regards michi This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ ufs-discuss mailing list [email protected]
