Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design

Previous message: [thread] [date] [author]
Next message: [thread] [date] [author]

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)


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:

Re: [Tux3] Comparison to Hammer fs design

Online users