|
i have no idea wtf you're tlaking about but you sure do sound mad about it. have you considered maybe switching to Microsoft Windows? i use it and i'm totally relaxed.
|
#
?
Oct 18, 2016 21:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
coding for windows is bad and you shouldn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:13
|
|
|
I trust the sarcastic guy
|
|
#
?
Oct 19, 2016 00:32
|
|
|
I think zfs is good and it's the OP who is terrible
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 19:44
|
|
|
The Management posted:coding for windows is bad and you shouldn't do it.
|
|
#
?
Dec 4, 2016 23:48
|
|
|
Only in the sense that no matter how garbage your code is, it is valid and usable in one or more of the 100 different legacy windows APIs and languages you have at your disposal
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
lol who resurrected this thread btrfs raid56 has got a fix for that scrub issue now! dont use it in production just yet though http://www.spinics.net/lists/linux-btrfs/msg60595.html
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:09
|
|
|
don't worry, it will be stable in another five to ten years, just in time for Linux to move on to another future file system.
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 20:29
|
|
|
i'm still in awe of how an opinion can be this wrong
|
|
#
?
Dec 5, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
The Management posted:don't worry, it will be stable in another five to ten years, just in time for Linux to move on to another future file system. xfs is still the recommended filesystem has been for more than ten years
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:01
|
|
|
Tankakern posted:lol who resurrected this thread i am not convinced btrfs will ever be done or maybe it will be "done" just in time for xpoint and high-speed nvme designs to render it irrelevant
|
|
#
?
Dec 6, 2016 01:02
|
|
|
zfs is so good apple took a bunch of its features for apfs what say you now, op
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 03:08
|
|
|
apfs is really basic compared to zfs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 04:27
|
|
|
The Management posted:apfs is really basic compared to zfs. apfs is designed for systems that weigh less than a single disk that zfs wants like six of
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 13:51
|
|
|
Cocoa Crispies posted:apfs is designed for systems that weigh less than a single disk that zfs wants like six of no arguments here. zfs is for servers and requires a fuckload of ram, apfs is for much smaller devices that don't need many of these features. I'm just saying that if you're comparing capabilities, zfs is far more advanced.
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
Tankakern posted:lol who resurrected this thread "scrub race" lol
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 15:47
|
|
|
akadajet posted:"scrub race" lol You're winning
|
|
#
?
Dec 10, 2016 21:00
|
|
|
Captain Foo posted:You're winning 
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 5, 2024 15:34 |
|
|
abraham linkedin posted:zfs is so good apple took a bunch of its features for apfs steve jobs sat up in his grave and proclaimed in a dry, croaky voice "actually, you don't need checksums when you never have any hardware or software errors", and thus apfs was born
|
|
#
?
Dec 11, 2016 22:36
|
|
