Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:43:16 +0100 From: Ivan Voras <ivoras@freebsd.org> To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS honesty Message-ID: <flrlib$j29$1@ger.gmane.org> In-Reply-To: <4781541D.6070500@conducive.net> References: <fll63b$j1c$1@ger.gmane.org> <20080106141157.I105@fledge.watson.org> <flr0np$euj$2@ger.gmane.org> <47810DE3.3050106@FreeBSD.org> <flr3iq$of7$1@ger.gmane.org> <478119AB.8050906@FreeBSD.org> <47814160.4050401@samsco.org> <4781541D.6070500@conducive.net>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
[-- Attachment #1 --] 韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote: > JM2CW, but the level of 'traffic' on this list in re > still-experimental-at-best ZFS is distracting attention from issues that > are more universal, critical to more users and uses - and more in need > of scarce attention 'Real Soon Now'. > > It almost begs dismissal of ZFS posts to the bespoke list out-of-hand. > > ZFS is still eminently 'avoidable' for now. > > Reports of I/O problems, drivers that can corrupt data on *UFS* are a > whole 'nuther matter.. For my part it's because I'm "desperate" for a good file system, and ZFS seemed to be "it" for a while. I'd also settle for any other, including a stable version of UFS that's pleasant to work with on TB-sized drives (Sun's UFS? BLUFFS?), XFS, Ext4, LFS, HAMMER, whatever. I've tried contacting the author of BLUFFS, but without optimistic results. [-- Attachment #2 --] -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.2.5 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org iD8DBQFHgVmJldnAQVacBcgRArtTAJ0TjrtlWo5jGozT55CIb6y3ZFTfFgCgu46n 5/kMq/EqrrwoIEwncZ2yVbg= =ygzs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?flrlib$j29$1>