From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG  Sat Nov 19 15:57:10 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 C55A716A41F;
	Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:57:10 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net)
Received: from www.ebusiness-leidinger.de (jojo.ms-net.de [84.16.236.246])
	by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1D03743D45;
	Sat, 19 Nov 2005 15:57:07 +0000 (GMT)
	(envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net)
Received: from Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (p54A5F21E.dip.t-dialin.net
	[84.165.242.30]) (authenticated bits=0)
	by www.ebusiness-leidinger.de (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id
	jAJFWBG7090853; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:32:12 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net)
Received: from Magellan.Leidinger.net (Magellan.Leidinger.net [192.168.1.1])
	by Andro-Beta.Leidinger.net (8.13.3/8.13.3) with ESMTP id
	jAJFuVp5003481; Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:56:31 +0100 (CET)
	(envelope-from Alexander@Leidinger.net)
Date: Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:56:31 +0100
From: Alexander Leidinger <Alexander@Leidinger.net>
To: "Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk>
Message-ID: <20051119165631.093b90b9@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
In-Reply-To: <13727.1132414598@critter.freebsd.dk>
References: <20051119162854.2656096a@Magellan.Leidinger.net>
	<13727.1132414598@critter.freebsd.dk>
X-Mailer: Sylpheed-Claws 1.9.100 (GTK+ 2.8.6; i386-portbld-freebsd7.0)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Virus-Scanned: by amavisd-new
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 15:57:10 -0000

On Sat, 19 Nov 2005 16:36:38 +0100
"Poul-Henning Kamp" <phk@phk.freebsd.dk> wrote:

> 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.

If you have a bug in any volume manager (integrated into the FS or
not), you're busted in any case. The way ZFS does the VM part is more
complex, and to err is human, so there's more potential to bust
something.

You can define more than one resource pool with ZFS, and as I did
understand it, the pools are distinct. So if you assign disc1 and disc2
to poolA and disc3 and disc4 to poolB, and you assign just one FS to
each pool, you still have the same separation like in vinum or
g{mirror,raid3,stripe}. You just have a more complex distribution
algorithm.

Bye,
Alexander.

-- 
   If Bill Gates had a dime for every time a Windows box crashed...
                ...Oh, wait a minute, he already does.

http://www.Leidinger.net                       Alexander @ Leidinger.net
  GPG fingerprint = C518 BC70 E67F 143F BE91  3365 79E2 9C60 B006 3FE7