IMHO, since I or i do not know what is the effort for making zone NFS server since many many many user will be using s10 for some time, this is nice feature to have
Sinc CIFS/SMB only happen in s11 so porting to s10 will be big job
But zone is in S10 since 2005 and ther are always new feature in zone and ZFS in many update:-)
my 2c

On 9/29/2011 4:45 PM, Nico Williams wrote:
On Thu, Sep 29, 2011 at 3:28 PM, Jeff Victor<>  wrote:
The general rule is "convince product management that there is a business
reason to invest the engineer(s) and it will get done."
IMO, for backports, the bar should be much higher.  The vendor should
compute the cost of the backport *including* the cost of opportunity,
and including the further cost of opportunity involved in encouraging
more backports by the mere fact of having done one backport (if the
customer believes they can put off upgrading forever then the pressure
to backport more and more features will rise).  If the value of doing
the backport *significantly* exceeds that cost, then, sure, do the

The cost of backporting complex features, particularly ones that have
wide ramifications, and particularly when the backport is to Solaris
10, with its awful patching mechanisms, is best understood as
astronomical.  A backport of Zoned NFS server should be considered as
in the high 7 $ figure range, if not higher still -- after all, how do
you estimate the forgone value of talented engineers working on
innovative new features??

Just say no to backports.  Pressure the ISVs instead to re-certify
their apps.  Legacy costs the customer a lot also -- there's enormous,
typically unaccounted-for costs in legacy.

zones-discuss mailing list

<<attachment: laotsao.vcf>>

zones-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to