On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:28:28AM -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> Nicolas Williams wrote:
> >On Wed, Jun 07, 2006 at 11:15:43AM -0700, Philip Brown wrote:
> >>This to me sounds much much better. Put all the funky potentially
> >>disasterous code, in lofs, not in zfs please :-) plus that way any
> >>filesystem will potentially get the "benefit" of views.
> >
> >
> >Hmmm, no, I think we've been rejecting the idea of stacking filesystems
> >because there are lots and lots of gotchas in stackable filesystems.
> >
>
> but.. but.. you already have a "stackable" filesystem. lofs. you cant
> reject what you already have, and are going to keep :-)
> And if lofs is going to get the feature, there's not much point in adding
> it into zfs natively.
But that's it. IIRC there was a discussion on opensolaris-discuss about
the 4.4.BSD unionfs. Nice idea, but ZFS snapshots and clones are even
nicer.
> >I'm not entirely sure why views are necessary. Use cases? And what's
> >wrong with find(1)? :-) :-)
>
> I think someone's drunk the microsoft/oracle "filesystems are databases"
> punch...
They aren't?
:)
They just aren't indexed, typically. I'd love for ZFS to have an index
feature mapping dnodes to objects referring to them (in the case of
directories, {directory dnode, file name}).
OR, with a user-land FEM we could have an index service maintaining such
indexes generically, including content indexing.
Nico
--
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
