Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 7th Mar 2007 17:53 UTC, submitted by SReilly
Permalink for comment 219362
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 23:02 UTC, submitted by M.Onty
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/19/13 22:28 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:33 UTC
Linked by Anonymous on 06/18/13 22:26 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 22:25 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:45 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/18/13 17:32 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:58 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/17/13 17:52 UTC
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 06/14/13 21:03 UTC
More News »
Sponsored Links



Member since:
2006-08-21
Unrelated problems.
ZFS, being a filesystem, is unrelated to data transfer. I'm sure it could be useful to the project in otherways, though: ext3 filesystems, for example, have a size limit in the neighborhood of 8-16 TB. You could probably use some kind of logical volume manager to concatinate a bunch of filesystems together, but why do that if ZFS can manage such datasets withought breaking a metaphorical sweat?
Of course, the article says nothing about the actual technology Google is using for these "hard drive systems," and I can't recall off the top of my head what the state of ZFS on Linux is (is it working now through FUSE?).
As for the problem at hand--transfers of enormous datasets--it's really just a Google implementation of the old proverb "never underestimate the bandwidth of a station wagon full of backup tapes speeding down the highway."