From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 19 15:36:42 2005
Return-Path: <owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG>
X-Original-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Delivered-To: freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org
Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125])
	by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2067316A41F;
	Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:36:42 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from phk.freebsd.dk (phk.freebsd.dk [130.225.244.222])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 852D543D45;
	Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:36:41 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from phk@critter.freebsd.dk)
Received: from critter.freebsd.dk (unknown [192.168.48.2])
	by phk.freebsd.dk (Postfix) with ESMTP id 764BCBC66;
	Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:36:39 +0000 (UTC)
To: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
From: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
In-Reply-To: Your message of "Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:28:54 +0100."
	<20051119162854.2656096a@Magellan.Leidinger.net> 
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:36:38 +0100
Message-ID: <13727.1132414598@critter.freebsd.dk>
Sender: phk@critter.freebsd.dk
Cc: Robert Watson <rwatson@FreeBSD.org>, freebsd-current@FreeBSD.org,
	delphij@delphij.net, Brian Candler <B.Candler@pobox.com>
Subject: Re: Logical volume management 
X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current
	<freebsd-current.freebsd.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>, 
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current>
List-Post: <mailto:freebsd-current@freebsd.org>
List-Help: <mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-current>,
	<mailto:freebsd-current-request@freebsd.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:36:42 -0000

In message <20051119162854.2656096a@Magellan.Leidinger.net>, Alexander Leidinge
r writes:

>Not more than in the same situation with 2 or more "black boxes"
>instead of one... :-)

That's actually not true.  A major part of the rationale for having
the partitioning (ie: mount points) in the name space rather than the
block layer is to allow the administrator to partition his data
and thus limit calmity to the affected area.

I'm not saying that the ZFS method doesn't have merits, but it certainly
has costs.

-- 
Poul-Henning Kamp       | UNIX since Zilog Zeus 3.20
phk@FreeBSD.ORG         | TCP/IP since RFC 956
FreeBSD committer       | BSD since 4.3-tahoe    
Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by incompetence.