1 |
On 18/08/2013 21:38, Tanstaafl wrote: |
2 |
> On 2013-08-18 5:16 AM, Alan McKinnon <alan.mckinnon@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
>> While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different |
4 |
>> bits of the file hierarchy as different*mount points*? That harks back |
5 |
>> to the days when the only way to have a chunk of fs space be different |
6 |
>> was to have it as a separate physical thing and mount it. Nowadays we |
7 |
>> have something better - ZFS. To me this makes so much more sense. I have |
8 |
>> a large amount of storage called a pool, and set size limits and |
9 |
>> characteristics for various directories without having to deal with |
10 |
>> fixed size volumes. |
11 |
> |
12 |
> Eh? *Who* has ZFS? Certainly not the linux kernel. |
13 |
> |
14 |
|
15 |
FreeBSD |
16 |
|
17 |
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it |
18 |
yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code. |
19 |
|
20 |
|
21 |
|
22 |
The bit you quoted shouldn't be read to mean that we have ZFS, it works |
23 |
on Linux and everyone should activate it and use it and chuck ext* out |
24 |
the window. |
25 |
|
26 |
I meant that we've been chugging along since 1982 or so with ancient |
27 |
disk concepts that come mostly from MS_DOS and limited by that hardware |
28 |
of that day. |
29 |
|
30 |
And here we are in 2013 *still* fiddling with partition tables, fixed |
31 |
file systems, fixed mountpoints and we still bang our heads weekly |
32 |
because sda3 has proven to be too small, and it's a *huge* mission to |
33 |
change it. Yes, LVM has made this sooooo much easier (kudos to Sistina |
34 |
for that) but I believe the entire approach is wrong. |
35 |
|
36 |
The ZFS approach is better - here's the storage, now do with it what I |
37 |
want but don't employ arbitrary fixed limits and structures to do it. |
38 |
|
39 |
|
40 |
-- |
41 |
Alan McKinnon |
42 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |