login
Login
/
Register
Search
Forums
News
Blogs
Features
Site
Home
»
Mailing list archives
»
dragonflybsd-kernel
»
2008
»
July
»
27
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design
view
thread
!MAILaRCHIVE_VOTE_RePLACE
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [thread] [
date
] [
author
]
[view in full thread]
From:
Daniel Phillips <phillips@...>
To: <kernel@...>
Subject:
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design
Date: Saturday, July 26, 2008 - 11:02 pm
On Saturday 26 July 2008 17:50, Matthew Dillon wrote:
quoted text
> :Why LVM why not follow the ZFS path ? > > I think its a mistake to integrate the storage layer into the > filesystem. That would effectively limit us to a single filesystem, > ZFS.
"Me too". Daniel
Previous message: [
thread
] [
date
] [
author
]
Next message: [thread] [
date
] [
author
]
Messages in current thread:
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design
, Matthew Dillon
, (Sat Jul 26, 8:50 pm)
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design
, Ivan Voras
, (Sat Jul 26, 9:50 pm)
Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design
, Daniel Phillips
, (Sat Jul 26, 11:02 pm)
Navigation
Create content
Mailing list archives
Recent posts
Popular discussions
linux-kernel
:
Greg KH
[GIT PATCH] driver core patches against 2.6.24
debian developer
Re: Dual-Licensing Linux Kernel with GPL V2 and GPL V3
Adrian Bunk
Re: LSM conversion to static interface
git
:
linux-netdev
:
Gerrit Renker
[PATCH 26/37] dccp: Integration of dynamic feature activation - part 1 (socket set...
Jarek Poplawski
Re: [PATCH] pkt_sched: Destroy gen estimators under rtnl_lock().
Frans Pop
svc: failed to register lockdv1 RPC service (errno 97).
Linus Torvalds
Re: [GIT]: Networking
openbsd-misc
:
Colocation donated by:
Who's online
There are currently
5 users
and
929 guests
online.
Online users
Jeremy
zeekec
TapestryPassion
ionut
garminportable
Syndicate