Ralf Ramge wrote: > I consider this a big design flaw of ZFS. Are you saying that it's a design flaw of ZFS that we haven't yet implemented remote replication? I would consider that a missing feature, not a design flaw. There's nothing in the design of ZFS to prevent such a feature (and in fact, several aspects of the design that would work very well with such a feature, eg as used with "zfs send").
> I'm not very familiar with the > code, but I still have hope that there'll be a parameter which allows to > get rid of the cache flushes. You mean zfs_nocacheflush? Admittedly, this is a hack. We're working on making this simply do the right thing, based on the capabilities of the underlying storage device. > ZFS, and the X4500, are typical examples > of different departments not really working together, e.g. they have a > wonderful file system, but there are no storages who supports it. I'm not sure what you mean. ZFS supports any storage, and works great on the X4500. --matt _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
