to go if it breaks existing applications which
> rely on this feature. It does break applications in our case.
Existing applications rely on the ability to corrupt UFS filesystems?
Sounds horrible.
--
-Alan Coopersmith- alan.coopersm...@oracle.com
Ora
o that the resources shared
between the two (such as QA) wouldn't be overloaded trying to get both
OpenSolaris 2010.12 and Solaris 10 10/09 finished up around the same time
(or when many of them would be normally out for the end-of-year holidays).
--
-Alan Coopersmith- al
Joerg Schilling wrote:
> Alan Coopersmith wrote:
>
>> If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then
>> you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be
>> zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires
>> zfs
s which the test
> suite won't have...
If the test suite is going to be running on nv_128 or later, then
you are guaranteed to have a zfs filesystem, since root must be
zfs then (since the only install method will be IPS, which requires
zfs root). Until then you could just document to
" is what gets used most of the time.
How current is that? I thought that while "Zettabyte File System"
was the original name, use of it was dropped a couple years ago and
ZFS became the only name. I don't see "Zettabyte" appearing anywhere
in the ZFS community p
