Re: OT - was Hammer or ZFS based backup, encryption

[Bill Hacker <wbh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jeremy Chadwick wrote:
> On Sun, Feb 22, 2009 at 01:36:28PM +0100, Michael Neumann wrote:
> > Am Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:17:11 -0800
> > schrieb Jeremy Chadwick <jdc@parodius.com>:

*snip*
> The one thing we all agree on is that, generally speaking, UFS isn't
> cutting it.  :-)

*I* don't agree.

Mind, we don't currently run any single-store over 2 TB with it here, 
but there is a great deal of life left in FFS2/UFS2.

I don't view either ZFS or HAMMER as coming into being because UFS 
doesn't work as a file system - but rather that UFS and necessary 
'add-ons' (+ snapshots + incremental backups + network bandwidth 
limitations + peak loading + admin labor costs) - could all be improved 
upon.

IOW - the 'package'.

HAMMER - or ZFS - are sets of compromises - and all such things are 
compromises - that address that 'package' need  - itself dictated by the 
astonishing growth in drive sizes, and the even more rapid growth in the 
all-too-frequently outright garbage the human race chooses to save on 
those...

;-)

IOW HAMMER or ZFS or  [Linux flavor of the day fs] are 'nice to have 
maybe' today. The 'essential' part is still a ways off for most of us.

But coming fast.

Look for example, at the data stream Dfarm was designed to capture...

Now think about a *serious* load. Perhaps Interactive gamer scoring...

:-)

Bill