Hi Darren, > Ah, your "CPU end" was referring to the NFS client cpu, not the storage > device CPU. That wasn't clear to me. The same limitations would apply > to ZFS (or any other filesystem) when running in support of an NFS > server. > > I thought you were trying to describe a qualitative difference between > ZFS and WAFL in terms of data checksumming in the on-disk layout.
Eh...NetApp can just open WAFL to neuter the argument... ;-) Or I suppose you could just run ZFS on top of an iSCSI or FC mount from the NetApp. The problem it seems to me with criticizing ZFS as not much different than WAFL, is that WAFL is really a networked storage backend, not a server operating system FS. If all you're using ZFS for is backending networked storage, the "not much different" criticism holds a fair amount of water I think. However, that highlights what's special about ZFS...it isn't limited to just that use case. Its the first server OS FS (to my knowledge) to provide all those features in one place, and that's what makes it revolutionary. Because you can truly use its features in any application with any storage. Its on that basis I think that placing ZFS and WAFL on equal footing is not a strong argument. Best Regards, Jason _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
