Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 10th Feb 2009 22:39 UTC, submitted by poundsmack
Thread beginning with comment 348207
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: ZFS, slow and steady
by FunkyELF on Wed 11th Feb 2009 17:01
in reply to "RE[3]: ZFS, slow and steady"
Don't you usually put you're bleeding edge type stuff on consumer level products and leave you tried and true stuff for the server?
Normally I'd agree with you, but ZFS is more for the server anyway.
Releasing ZFS for the desktop first would be like introducing something like support for more than 16 processors for the desktop where nobody would be using it anyway.
RE[5]: ZFS, slow and steady
by Sabon on Wed 11th Feb 2009 18:07
in reply to "RE[4]: ZFS, slow and steady"
"Don't you usually put you're bleeding edge type stuff on consumer level products and leave you tried and true stuff for the server?
Normally I'd agree with you, but ZFS is more for the server anyway.
Releasing ZFS for the desktop first would be like introducing something like support for more than 16 processors for the desktop where nobody would be using it anyway. "
Read the above posts to see why this isn't true.
Also, with Snow Leapard this might not be true either as programs WILL start using multiple CPU/cores/GPUs.
Edited 2009-02-11 18:08 UTC






Member since:
2005-07-06
Don't you usually put you're bleeding edge type stuff on consumer level products and leave you tried and true stuff for the server? Having to work on OS X server just about everyday I think Apple has it backwards. But I'm sure it's because Apple is focused on the consumer market and not the Server market.