Control devices remotely hack
+ Burner Numbers hack
+ Verified Paypal Accounts hack
+ Any social media account hack
+ Android & iPhone Hack
+ server crashed hack
+ Text message interception hack
+ Twitters hack
+ Skype hack
+ Credit cards hacker
+ We can drop money into bank accounts.
+ credit score hack
+ blank credit card sale
+ Hack and use Credit Card to shop online
+ Monitor any phone and email address
+ Tap into anybody's call and monitor their
conversation
CONTACT:ftom9856 via kik
Or email blackspothack@gmail. com
TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
81–90 of 126 posts
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#82Good luck. There is long road ahead. Both ZFS and Btrfs were initially developed by really high caliber people and experts with good track record. ZFS had five years for full time development until release, next five years to get close to the features and stability that ZFS has now. Btrfs started 10 years ago and it's still trying to catch up.
I think you think to highly of the btrfs group. There not bad people but Filesystems are HARD to get right and they simply are not in the same league as the zfs developers were. The well known raid 5 issue btrfs had shows a prime example that the btrfs simply is not in the same class as zfs' design. I wouldn't compare the two.
I use ZFS under FreeBSD but I am wondering what the future of ZFS looks like.
I went to the OpenZFS website (http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page) to try and get a feel for the amount of work currently going on. They have some videos and slides, they have a mailing list. The mailing list is mostly full of messages via GitHub but at least that lead me to https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs which I was previously unaware of and which I had not found when trying to look for an OpenZFS specific repository.
As far as I have come to understand, the goal of the OpenZFS project is to merge changes made to ZFS by Illumos, FreeBSD, ZFS-on-Linux and other projects. Their videos might answer this but I wish their website had a clear and simple overview of what has been done. Most of what I can find on their wiki is various ideas for things that they want to do, but I can't know if that means that the OpenZFS project is mostly talk and not so much action, or if it's just that they have done a lot of those things but because they are busy doing they don't have time to write about it. Could be that they have some pages on the wiki I haven't seen also but in that case I think it should be organized better.
I know that Joyent picked up several highly skilled software engineers and programmers that used to work for Sun, and that their SmartOS operating system builds on code descendant from OpenSolaris and that ZFS is as integral on SmartOS as it was on Solaris, perhaps even more so on SmartOS. I have not seen mention of SmartOS on the OpenZFS wiki though.
All in all I feel that ZFS is still being actively developed and maintained by many people. But to what extent they are able to cooperate as much as a lot of them seem to want to I would like to know. It would be a shame if btrfs overtook ZFS simply because the development of ZFS was too fragmented :/
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#83"Team Foundation Server" (Microsoft's version control server) is what goes through my mind... poor choice of naming...
The readme also alludes to a file system by terminalcloud which is also apparently named TFS, and doesn't explain what the T is supposed to stand for. Really poor choice of name. If they wanted a modular replacement for ZFS then call it MFS or ModFS or something...
If it's a successor, they should follow tradition and just pick the letter after Z.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#84Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why downplay it? It's an impressive feat, regardless of the differences in target devices. Even with the hardware configurations well known, the fact that it was done at such a large scale successfully means that even unusual edge conditions didn't crop up. This shouldn't be downplayed, it actually speaks to why it's important to have incremental stages of software delivery. First target highly constrained environmen…
It's absolutely an impressive feat to pull this off. But it's not quite the same problem as building a robust general-purpose FS for a diverse ecosystem.
True; and yet, it feels like there is much low-hanging fruit left in filesystens that are just built for specific vertically-integrated use-cases. A NAS hardware-appliance company, for example, could likely pull off something similar to what Apple did, and to great benefit.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#85Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you think to highly of the btrfs group. There not bad people but Filesystems are HARD to get right and they simply are not in the same league as the zfs developers were. The well known raid 5 issue btrfs had shows a prime example that the btrfs simply is not in the same class as zfs' design. I wouldn't compare the two.
I use ZFS under FreeBSD but I am wondering what the future of ZFS looks like. I went to the OpenZFS website ( http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page ) to try and get a feel for the amount of work currently going on. They have some videos and slides, they have a mailing list. The mailing list is mostly full of messages via GitHub but at least that lead me to https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs which I was previously unawar…
The various Illumos distributions routinely upstream their changes into the master Illumos repository ( https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate). I know that ZFS on Linux (https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs) routinely integrates those changes, as well as making some of its own and I believe pushing them upstream to Illumos. When I've looked at FreeBSD commit logs, they too are pulling in ZFS changes from Illumos on a frequent basis (but I know less about any independent development and upstreaming).
My strong impression is that the ZFS code base is a sufficiently big and tangled thing that no one wants it to fragment. With bug-fixes and improvements happening in Illumos, ZoL and FreeBSD both want to be able to incorporate them on a regular basis and to push their own changes upstream to reduce the maintenance burden of carrying those changes.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#86"Team Foundation Server" (Microsoft's version control server) is what goes through my mind... poor choice of naming...
It's more than just a bad VCS. It's a bad bug tracker, a bad build system and a bad workflow system as well. But yeah, if I wanted a set of three letters than suggested quality and reliability, TFS would be near the bottom of my list.
Actually I am yet to find a CI system that allows the TFS workflow of preventing checkins if the unit tests fail.
All the other ones I know require creating scripts that will manage branches and merges into the main branch.
On TFS I select a check box and go off doing something else.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#87Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's absolutely an impressive feat to pull this off. But it's not quite the same problem as building a robust general-purpose FS for a diverse ecosystem.
True; and yet, it feels like there is much low-hanging fruit left in filesystens that are just built for specific vertically-integrated use-cases. A NAS hardware-appliance company, for example, could likely pull off something similar to what Apple did, and to great benefit.
NetApp have making good money with custom NAS boxes, complete with their own OS and filesystem, since 1993 or so.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#88Earlier quoted context omitted.
I use ZFS under FreeBSD but I am wondering what the future of ZFS looks like. I went to the OpenZFS website ( http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page ) to try and get a feel for the amount of work currently going on. They have some videos and slides, they have a mailing list. The mailing list is mostly full of messages via GitHub but at least that lead me to https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs which I was previously unawar…
The various Illumos distributions routinely upstream their changes into the master Illumos repository ( https://github.com/illumos/illumos-gate ). I know that ZFS on Linux ( https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs ) routinely integrates those changes, as well as making some of its own and I believe pushing them upstream to Illumos. When I've looked at FreeBSD commit logs, they too are pulling in ZFS changes from Illumos on…
Illumos is the repo of record. Everyone of the above OS distributions feeds changes upstream keeping zfs in sync between platforms. No one relying on zfs wants forks or incompatibilities. That's one of zfs main selling points, that you can yank a pool from FreeBSD and shove them into illumos and vice Versa.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#89looks like a one man/woman show. the graphs show most of the activity only by one contributor. :(
I don't consider that a bad thing. The project may pick up more contributors down the road — or it might not. Either way, that doesn't speak negatively of the project itself.
yes, true. But for a file system you either need a lot of time or more people.
Re: TFS: A file system built for performance, space efficiency, and scalability
#90Is this the TFS that Redox OS is building after falling short on their ZFS goal?