Date: Wed, 15 Sep 2004 20:28:50 -0700 From: Bruce M Simpson <bms@spc.org> To: Chris Doherty <chris-freebsd@randomcamel.net> Cc: hackers@freebsd.org Subject: Re: ZFS Message-ID: <20040916032850.GD7413@empiric.icir.org> In-Reply-To: <20040915204824.GI7022@zot.electricrain.com> References: <41483C97.2030303@fer.hr> <Pine.LNX.4.60.0409151047230.21034@athena> <20040915204824.GI7022@zot.electricrain.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
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
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20040916032850.GD7413>