The problem is: The first time the a software release is considered
stable, it takes significant time for the uptake and the moment it's
really stable. ZFS was introduced almost 5 years ago to the public and
just now it gets mayor uptake in the field. I still don't get it, why
brtfs should be
or not ... it has
something to do with development processes. And by the way: Wasn't there a
comment of Linus Torvals recently that people shound move their low-quality
code into the codebase ??? ;)
--
ORACLE
Joerg Moellenkamp | Sales Consultant
Phone: +49 40 251523-460 | Mobile: +4
Regards
Joerg
--
Joerg MoellenkampTel: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 460
Principal Field Technologist Fax: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 425
Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 172) 83 18 433
Nagelsweg 55 mailto:joerg.moellenk...@sun.com
D-20097 Hamburg
Hi,
>> *everybody* is interested in the flag days page. Including me.
>> Asking me to "raise the priority" is not helpful.
>
>> From my perspective, it's a surprise that 'everybody' is interested, as I'm
> not seeing a lot of people complaining that the flag day page is not updating.
> Only a co
Hi,
Well ... i think Darren should implement this as a part of zfs-crypto. Secure
Delete on SSD looks like quite challenge, when wear leveling and bad block
relocation kicks in ;)
Regards
Joerg
Am 11.11.2009 um 17:53 schrieb Cindy Swearingen:
> This feature is described in this RFE:
>
> htt
>
>> djm> Much better for jurisdictions that allow for that, but not all
>> not knowing where something physically is at all times?
>
> I'm not in a position to discuss this jurisdictions requirements and
> rationale on a public mailing list. All I'm saying is that data destruction
> base on
On 22.12.09 18:42, Roman Naumenko wrote:
On Tue, 22 Dec 2009, Ross Walker wrote:
Applying classic RAID terms to zfs is just plain
wrong and misleading since zfs does not directly implement these classic RAID
approaches
even though it re-uses some of the algorithms for data recovery.
Details do
aster checksumming as
well as a reduced probability of false positive deduplications due to hash
collisions?
Regards
Joerg
--
Joerg Moellenkamp Tel: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 460
Principal Field Technologist Fax: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 425
Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 172) 83 1
dministration. However this needs good administrative
processes.
You can use dedup for VMs, but i'm not sure someone should ...
Is this a zfs discussion list, or a nexenta sales & promotion list?
Well ... i have an opinion how he sees that ... however it's just my own ;)
--
ORACL
ches are in the
laundry at the moment ;-)"
I hope this idea is not complete nonsense ...
Regards
Joerg
--
Joerg Moellenkamp Tel: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 460
Senior Systems Engineer Fax: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 425
Sun Microsystems GmbH Mobile: (+49 172) 83 18 433
Nagelsweg 55
Hi Jorgen,
warning ... weird idea inside ...
Ah it just occurred to me that perhaps for our specific problem, we
will buy two X25-Es and replace the root mirror. The OS and ZIL logs
can live together and put /var in the data pool. That way we would
not need to rebuild the data-pool and all th
dir_index option like ext3. Is this correct ? And what
can i do to speed up such a find operation. I know it?s pathological
benchmark, but is there a solution for this performance gap ?
Regards
Joerg
--
Joerg Moellenkamp Tel: (+49 40) 25 15 23 - 460
IT-ArchitectFax
Hello,
in a different benchmark run on the same system, the gfind took 15
minutes whereas the standarf find took 18 minutes. With find and
noatime=off the benchmark took 14 minutes. But even this is slow
compared to 2-3 minutes of the xfs system.
Regards
Joerg
[EMAIL PROTECTED] schrieb:
13 matches
Mail list logo
