Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Jorg,
>
> Do you really think that ANY FS actually needs to support
> more FS objects? If that would be an issue, why not create
> more FSs?
>
> A multi-TB FS SHOULD support 100MB+/GB size FS objects, which
> IMO is the more common use. I have seen this alot in video
> environments. The largest that I have personally seen is in
> excess of 64TBs.
Abou 12 years ago many people have been in fear to create filesystems
grater than 2 GB. Today we cannot believe this.
> I would assume that just normal FSops that search or display
> a extremely large number of FS objects is going to be
> difficult to use. Just try placing 10k+ FS objects/files within
> a directly and then list that directory.
>
> As for backups / restore type ops, I would assume that a
> smaller granularity of specified paths / directories would be
> more common due to user error and not disturbing other
> directories.
I am sure, in 10-15 years people think different than they do today.
Note that in 15 years, a single 2.5 " disk will have a capacity of
aprox. 100 TB. As people will use striping and RAID technologies
to optimize speed and reliability, a single data pool will most likely be
usually 1000 TB. Backup media will also increate in size......
Jörg
--
EMail:[EMAIL PROTECTED] (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (uni)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/
URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/old/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
