Date: Sun, 3 Feb 2008 23:57:44 -0600 From: "illoai@gmail.com" <illoai@gmail.com> To: "Christian Baer" <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> Cc: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Looking for a Text on ZFS Message-ID: <d7195cff0802032157l26ebcc3o35cfe90809d50ee2@mail.gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <fo496o$1phk$1@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net> References: <fo2f26$1l2q$1@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net> <d7195cff0802021938o3d9d8316h5aead7e1ac710e75@mail.gmail.com> <fo496o$1phk$1@nermal.rz1.convenimus.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
On 03/02/2008, Christian Baer <christian.baer@uni-dortmund.de> wrote: > On Sat, 2 Feb 2008 21:38:49 -0600 illoai@gmail.com wrote: > > Well, the best, I think. > > I take ist, you don't approve of ZFS? :-) > It is not a panacaea. The optimisation and sharing of r/w, Load balancing, And redundant data verification (to say nothing of the supposed ability to blindly stab disks into a nearly infinite array) are all features that I can see being appreciated. In a couple of processor generations. (I am talking desktop junk here) The kids running big iron will have already decided and my feeble arguments are like sand in a badger's vagina. -- --
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?d7195cff0802032157l26ebcc3o35cfe90809d50ee2>