<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Mar 4, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Gary Mills <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:mills@cc.umanitoba.ca">mills@cc.umanitoba.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div class="im">On Tue, Mar 03, 2009 at 11:35:40PM +0200, "C. Bergström" wrote:<br>
><br>
> Here's more or less what I've collected...<br>
><br>
</div>[..]<br>
<div class="im">> 10) Did I miss something..<br>
<br>
</div>I suppose my RFE for two-level ZFS should be included, unless nobody<br>
intends to attach a ZFS file server to a SAN with ZFS on application<br>
servers.<br>
<font color="#888888"><br>
--<br>
-Gary Mills- -Unix Support- -U of M Academic Computing and Networking-<br>
</font><div><div><span id="q_11fd242061de7d34_5" class="h4"></span></div></div></blockquote><div><br>Although it seems your idea fell on a lot of deaf ears, I personally think it's a great one. It would give people a reason to use Solaris as their server OS of choice as well as their fileserver/storage appliance. It would also give them something NetApp doesn't have, instead of a bunch of me-too's (no, we don't need to start a flame-fest, it's my opinion, years of reading this list haven't changed it). As it stands, either you put your workload where the disks are, or you're wasting disk doing raid twice.<br>
<br>--Tim <br></div></div>