From owner-freebsd-current@FreeBSD.ORG Sun Oct 7 01:37:36 2007 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-current@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3A3BD16A417; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:37:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from darrenr@freebsd.org) Received: from out1.smtp.messagingengine.com (out1.smtp.messagingengine.com [66.111.4.25]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 17F1B13C459; Sun, 7 Oct 2007 01:37:36 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from darrenr@freebsd.org) Received: from compute1.internal (compute1.internal [10.202.2.41]) by out1.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 839822FC99; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from heartbeat2.messagingengine.com ([10.202.2.161]) by compute1.internal (MEProxy); Sat, 06 Oct 2007 21:37:35 -0400 X-Sasl-enc: W06mE+jm4t721hdCOxZ9LDIQVTnK6MHndTHnMuvNwZqp 1191721055 Received: from [192.168.1.235] (64-142-85-108.dsl.dynamic.sonic.net [64.142.85.108]) by mail.messagingengine.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id CEEF0112C; Sat, 6 Oct 2007 21:37:34 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <47083883.6000503@freebsd.org> Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2007 18:38:11 -0700 From: Darren Reed User-Agent: Thunderbird 2.0.0.0 (Windows/20070326) MIME-Version: 1.0 To: =?UTF-8?B?RGFnLUVybGluZyBTbcO4cmdyYXY=?= References: <4707569E.6010400@freebsd.org> <868x6gpk3i.fsf@ds4.des.no> In-Reply-To: <868x6gpk3i.fsf@ds4.des.no> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Cc: FreeBSD Current , pjd@FreeBSD.org Subject: Re: ZFS & NFS integration... X-BeenThere: freebsd-current@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Discussions about the use of FreeBSD-current List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sun, 07 Oct 2007 01:37:36 -0000 Dag-Erling Smørgrav wrote: > Darren Reed writes: > > Whats the planned status for ZFS+NFS with 7.0? > > Don't Do It, basically. > This sounds like a "shoot yourself in the foot" comment. Why? And if it is that bad, shouldn't we disable sharenfs or at least prevent ZFS from recognising it or taking action because of it? Darren