On 9/12/06, Celso <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Whether it's hard to understand is debatable, but
> this feature
> integrates very smoothly with the existing
> infrastructure and wouldn't
> cause any trouble when extending or porting ZFS.
>
OK, given this statement...
>
> Just for the record, these changes are pretty trivial
> to implement; less
> than 50 lines of code changed.
and this statement, I can't see any reasons not to include it. If the changes
are easy to do, don't require anymore of the zfs team's valuable time, and
don't hinder other things, I would plead with you to include them, as I think
they are genuinely valuable and would make zfs not only the best enterprise
level filesystem, but also the best filesystem for laptops/home computers.
While I'm not a big fan of this feature, if the work is that well
understood and that small, I have no objection to it. (Boy that
sounds snotty; apologies, not what I intend here. Those of you
reading this know how muich you care about my opinion, that's up to
you.)
I do pity the people who count on the ZFS redundancy to protect their
presentation on an important sales trip -- and then have their laptop
stolen. But those people might well be the same ones who would have
*no* redundancy otherwise. And nothing about this feature prevents
the paranoids like me from still making our backup CD and carrying it
separately.
I'm not prepared to go so far as to argue that it's bad to make them
feel safer :-). At least, to make them feel safer *by making them
actually safer*.
--
David Dyer-Bennet, <mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/>
RKBA: <http://www.dd-b.net/carry/>
Pics: <http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/>
Dragaera/Steven Brust: <http://dragaera.info/>
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
