> can you run a database on RMS? As well as you could on must Unix file systems. And you've been able to do so for almost three decades now (whereas features like asynchronous and direct I/O are relative newcomers in the Unix environment).
> I guess its not suited And you guess wrong: that's what happens when you speak from ignorance rather than from something more substantial. > we are already trying to get ride of a 15 years old > filesystem called > wafl, Whatever for? Please be specific about exactly what you expect will work better with whatever you're planning to replace it with - and why you expect it to be anywhere nearly as solid. and a 10 years old "file system" called > Centera, My, you must have been one of the *very* early adopters, since EMC launched it only 5 1/2 years ago. so do you thing > we are going to consider a 35 years old filesystem > now... computer > science made a lot of improvement since Well yes, and no. For example, most Unix platforms are still struggling to match the features which VMS clusters had over two decades ago: when you start as far behind as Unix did, even continual advances may still not be enough to match such 'old' technology. Not that anyone was suggesting that you replace your current environment with RMS: if it's your data, knock yourself out using whatever you feel like using. On the other hand, if someone else is entrusting you with *their* data, they might be better off looking for someone with more experience and sense. - bill This message posted from opensolaris.org _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
