On Apr 30, 7:50 am, Theodore Tso <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> Most of the people who have been cheerleading for either ZFS or
> Reiser4 don't seme to have the necessary technical skills, alas.
>
> - Ted
Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
ZFS may be inappropriate.
On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> ZFS may be inappropriate.
Functional, but it's a new filesystem with not as much time-tested
experience in the field. Many Solaris system administrators are
electing to wait rather than immediately press it into service for
critical servers, electing to use Solaris's UFS instead. I've heard a
few problems with ZFS recovering from data corruption, but not enough
to know whether it is a general trend (not that I track that kind of
stuff). As a rule, enterprise system administrators that run PO
servers for thousands of users as a time are extremely conservative,
and for good reason.
Of course, there's a big difference between those folks and people
using ZFS for their own personal development.
- Ted
2007/5/2, Theodore Tso <[email protected]>:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> > Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> > functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> > ZFS may be inappropriate.
>
> Functional, but it's a new filesystem with not as much time-tested
> experience in the field. Many Solaris system administrators are
> electing to wait rather than immediately press it into service for
> critical servers, electing to use Solaris's UFS instead. I've heard a
> few problems with ZFS recovering from data corruption, but not enough
> to know whether it is a general trend (not that I track that kind of
> stuff). As a rule, enterprise system administrators that run PO
> servers for thousands of users as a time are extremely conservative,
> and for good reason.
>
> Of course, there's a big difference between those folks and people
> using ZFS for their own personal development.
>
> - Ted
>
On May 1, 1:50 am, Theodore Tso <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> In general, yes, ext4 development has been a little slow; part of the
> problem is that we have a lot of people, but a number of folks are new
> and their patches need review before they are ready for upstream
> acceptance, and a number of other folks who should be doing the review
> have been overloaded with multiple other projects and have been
> time-sharing.
It is predictable that ext4 needs a loooong time to be enterprise-ready ;)