Re: Snow Leopard without ZFS
- From: Gary Gorbet <ggorbet@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 10:55:21 -0500
In article <jollyroger-C40DCE.21022909072009@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Jolly Roger <jollyroger@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
In article <009d8c2a$0$23879$c3e8da3@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Joseph Mostarda <jmostarda@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 2009-06-10 09:53:23 -0700, Warren Oates <warren.oates@xxxxxxxxx> said:
http://hardware.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/06/09/2336223
ZFS doesn't matter to the average end user. It was an issue solely for
those planning on working with Snow Leopard Server.
While I don't consider myself an average end user, it matters to me and
I wouldn't likely use it with Mac OS X Server.
I'm probably not an average end user either and it does matter to me.
My experience with ZFS is on a file server running Solaris 10. It
served up file systems for Mac, Windows and various Unix/Linux. It is a
wonderful file system; very solid and very easy to administer. It has
many pluses that I won't detail here.
I think if Apple were to implement it for Snow Leopard, the average
user would quickly grow to love it. One way I could see it being used
on even a single machine is pooling all the physical hard disks a user
has and then "partitioning" the entire pool on the fly to whatever
sizes are needed. To the system it would look just like current type
partitions, but they are easy to resize without ever having to move any
data. No more nasty backup-repartition-restore nightmares.
.
- References:
- Re: Snow Leopard without ZFS
- From: Joseph Mostarda
- Re: Snow Leopard without ZFS
- Prev by Date: Re: TM search-by-content?
- Next by Date: Re: iWork vs. Microsoft Office
- Previous by thread: Re: Snow Leopard without ZFS
- Next by thread: Tim: Mini due for a major refresh OR all the line grossly overpriced?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading
