On Tue, Sep 12, 2006 at 03:56:00PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote: > Matthew Ahrens wrote: [...] > Given the overwhelming criticism of this feature, I'm going to shelve it for > now.
I'd really like to see this feature. You say ZFS should change our view on filesystems, I say be consequent. In ZFS world we create one big pool out of all our disks and create filesystems on top of it. This way we don't have to care about resizing them, etc. But this way we define redundancy at pool level for all our filesystems. It is quite common that we have data we don't really care about as well as data we do care about a lot in the same pool. Before ZFS, I'd just create RAID0 for the former and RAID1 for the latter, but this is not the ZFS way, right? My question is how can I express my intent of defining redundancy level based of the importance of my data, but still following the ZFS way without 'copies' feature? Please reconsider your choice. -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheel.pl [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.FreeBSD.org FreeBSD committer Am I Evil? Yes, I Am!
pgpRd16TY8bxr.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
