=E9=9F=93=E5=AE=B6=E6=A8=99 Bill Hacker wrote:

quoted text
> JM2CW, but the level of 'traffic' on this list in re=20
> still-experimental-at-best ZFS is distracting attention from issues tha=
t=20
quoted text
> are more universal, critical to more users and uses - and more in need =

quoted text
> of scarce attention 'Real Soon Now'.
>=20
> It almost begs dismissal of ZFS posts to the bespoke list out-of-hand.
>=20
> ZFS is still eminently 'avoidable' for now.
>=20
> Reports of I/O problems, drivers that can corrupt data on *UFS* are a=20
> whole 'nuther matter..

For my part it's because I'm "desperate" for a good file system, and ZFS =

seemed to be "it" for a while. I'd also settle for any other, including=20
a stable version of UFS that's pleasant to work with on TB-sized drives=20
(Sun's UFS? BLUFFS?), XFS, Ext4, LFS, HAMMER, whatever.

I've tried contacting the author of BLUFFS, but without optimistic result=
s.