On Mon, Nov 14, 2011 at 14:40, Paul Kraus <p...@kraus-haus.org> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 11, 2011 at 9:25 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
> <opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote:
>> LOL.  Well, for what it's worth, there are three common pronunciations for
>> btrfs.  Butterfs, Betterfs, and B-Tree FS (because it's based on b-trees.)
>> Check wikipedia.  (This isn't really true, but I like to joke, after saying
>> something like that, I wrote the wikipedia page just now.)   ;-)
> Is it really B-Tree based? Apple's HFS+ is B-Tree based and falls
> apart (in terms of performance) when you get too many objects in one
> FS, which is specifically what drove us to ZFS. We had 4.5 TB of data
> in about 60 million files/directories on an Apple X-Serve and X-RAID
> and the overall response was terrible. We moved the data to ZFS and
> the performance was limited by the Windows client at that point.
>> Speaking of which. zettabyte filesystem.   ;-)  Is it just a dumb filesystem
>> with a lot of address bits?  Or is it something that offers functionality
>> that other filesystems don't have?   ....   ;-)
> The stories I have heard indicate that the name came after the TLA.
> "zfs" came first and "zettabyte" later.

as Jeff told it (IIRC), the "expanded" version of zfs underwent
several changes during the development phase, until it was decided one
day to attach none of them to "zfs" and just have it be "the last word
in filesystems". (perhaps he even replied to a similar message on this
list ... check the archives :-)

Michael Schuster
zfs-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to