From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Thu Sep 16 03:28:55 2004 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.FreeBSD.org (mx1.freebsd.org [216.136.204.125]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 462E616A4CE for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:28:55 +0000 (GMT) Received: from arginine.spc.org (arginine.spc.org [195.206.69.236]) by mx1.FreeBSD.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0848A43D58 for ; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:28:55 +0000 (GMT) (envelope-from bms@spc.org) Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2D956651F7; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:28:54 +0100 (BST) Received: from arginine.spc.org ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (arginine.spc.org [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with LMTP id 31449-01; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:28:53 +0100 (BST) Received: from empiric.dek.spc.org (adsl-64-171-184-46.dsl.snfc21.pacbell.net [64.171.184.46]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by arginine.spc.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DD80A651F4; Thu, 16 Sep 2004 04:28:52 +0100 (BST) Received: by empiric.dek.spc.org (Postfix, from userid 1001) id AA95863B3; Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:28:50 -0700 (PDT) Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:28:50 -0700 From: Bruce M Simpson To: Chris Doherty Message-ID: <20040916032850.GD7413@empiric.icir.org> References: <41483C97.2030303@fer.hr> <20040915204824.GI7022@zot.electricrain.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20040915204824.GI7022@zot.electricrain.com> cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.1 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 16 Sep 2004 03:28:55 -0000 On Wed, Sep 15, 2004 at 01:48:24PM -0700, Chris Doherty wrote: > regardless of the marketing hyperbole, a friend of mine went to a > week-long Solaris 10 beta conference put on my Sun, and says that their > engineers said the extrapolations did show they'd have to go beyond 64-bit > filesystems in the 10-15 year timeframe, so as long as they were going to > have to rewrite everything anyway, they'd just go whole-hog and do 128-bit > and add a ton of shiny features while they were at it. > > he also reported it worked well as advertised; I'm inclined to believe > him, since he has no special love for Sun, and he was speaking directly > with the engineers who developed the thing. On a similar note, das@ came round to my place in Berkeley just before he moved out East. He was telling me about his internship at Sun, and what DFS/ZFS/whateverFS does as he was working on it, though he was careful not to break any NDAs. The claims seem to be grounded in good engineering, and I'd take David's word for it. BMS