Re: ZFS honesty

From: Ivan Voras <ivoras_at_freebsd.org>
Date: Sun, 06 Jan 2008 23:43:16 +0100
韓家標 Bill Hacker wrote:

> JM2CW, but the level of 'traffic' on this list in re 
> still-experimental-at-best ZFS is distracting attention from issues that 
> are more universal, critical to more users and uses - and more in need 
> of scarce attention 'Real Soon Now'.
> 
> It almost begs dismissal of ZFS posts to the bespoke list out-of-hand.
> 
> ZFS is still eminently 'avoidable' for now.
> 
> Reports of I/O problems, drivers that can corrupt data on *UFS* are a 
> whole 'nuther matter..

For my part it's because I'm "desperate" for a good file system, and ZFS 
seemed to be "it" for a while. I'd also settle for any other, including 
a stable version of UFS that's pleasant to work with on TB-sized drives 
(Sun's UFS? BLUFFS?), XFS, Ext4, LFS, HAMMER, whatever.

I've tried contacting the author of BLUFFS, but without optimistic results.


Received on Sun Jan 06 2008 - 21:43:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Wed May 19 2021 - 11:39:25 UTC