ahl

10 ms·

1. 91.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   100% true about the performance cliff, though at Delphix we worked a bunch to raise performance before the cliff and to push out that cliff. All COW filesystems filesystems (and I'll throw SSD FTLs into there as well) require over-prov
2. 92.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   Hard links to directories are weird enough that many modern filesystems (including APFS) don't support them. Yes the language is perhaps unnecessarily colorful; just trying to keep things interesting.
3. 93.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   Definitely not. ZFS was primarily focused on spinning disks. Take for example the fact that the project discarded block indirection early on: the resulting random reads would be basically fine on SSDs and debilitating on HDDs. Ditto TRIM wh
4. 94.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   Agreed with all of this, but it's hard to imagine the licensing was truly insurmountable.
5. 95.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   It would be a strange kind of NIH that excluded ZFS but welcomed HAMMER...
6. 96.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   The Sun acquisition was announced in 2009 and closed in 2010. It may have been related, but I have my own suspicions about about what caused Apple to jettison their port.
7. 97.▲
   by ahl 10y ago

   The spartan description of APFS certainly sounds like the (partial) feature list for ZFS--the comparisons made in the comments here are on-point. ZFS though took around 5 years to ship and, arguably, another 5-10 to get right. I say this ha