<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_06_09_2336223</id>
	<title>Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS</title>
	<author>kdawson</author>
	<datestamp>1244571300000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Roskolnikov writes <i>"Apple has apparently decided that ZFS isn't really ready for prime time. We've been discussing Apple/ZFS <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/07/1414206&amp;tid=179">rumors</a>, <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/06/12/1521254&amp;tid=179">denials</a>, and <a href="//apple.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/11/2028220&amp;tid=179">sightings</a> for some years now. Currently a <a href="http://www.apple.com/search/?q=zfs">search on Apple's site for ZFS</a> yields only two hits, one of them probably an oversight in the ZFS-cleansing program and the other a reference to open source. Contrast this with an <a href="http://74.125.47.132/search?q=cache:xc6veOk\_OTQJ:www.apple.com/server/macosx/snowleopard/+Apple+ZFS&amp;cd=3&amp;hl=en&amp;ct=clnk&amp;gl=us">item from the Google cache</a> regarding ZFS and Snow Leopard. Apple has done this kind of disappearing act in the past, but I was really hoping that this was one feature promise they would keep. I certainly hope this isn't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OS X."</i></htmltext>
<tokenext>Roskolnikov writes " Apple has apparently decided that ZFS is n't really ready for prime time .
We 've been discussing Apple/ZFS rumors , denials , and sightings for some years now .
Currently a search on Apple 's site for ZFS yields only two hits , one of them probably an oversight in the ZFS-cleansing program and the other a reference to open source .
Contrast this with an item from the Google cache regarding ZFS and Snow Leopard .
Apple has done this kind of disappearing act in the past , but I was really hoping that this was one feature promise they would keep .
I certainly hope this is n't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OS X .
"</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Roskolnikov writes "Apple has apparently decided that ZFS isn't really ready for prime time.
We've been discussing Apple/ZFS rumors, denials, and sightings for some years now.
Currently a search on Apple's site for ZFS yields only two hits, one of them probably an oversight in the ZFS-cleansing program and the other a reference to open source.
Contrast this with an item from the Google cache regarding ZFS and Snow Leopard.
Apple has done this kind of disappearing act in the past, but I was really hoping that this was one feature promise they would keep.
I certainly hope this isn't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OS X.
"</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280223</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>chefmonkey</author>
	<datestamp>1244651160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Wait... what? You open by telling us that you have to perform custom tuning on the filesystem for certain applications, and later assert that "ZFS is extremely simple to use."</p><p>[cue the car analogy]</p><p>That's like claiming you have to open the hood on a car and tinker with the engine depending on what kind of road you're driving on, and then asserting that the car is "extremely easy to use." If you mess with your engine on a regular basis, it might seem that way -- but if you're a normal user, it's an unspeakable pain in the ass.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Wait... what ? You open by telling us that you have to perform custom tuning on the filesystem for certain applications , and later assert that " ZFS is extremely simple to use .
" [ cue the car analogy ] That 's like claiming you have to open the hood on a car and tinker with the engine depending on what kind of road you 're driving on , and then asserting that the car is " extremely easy to use .
" If you mess with your engine on a regular basis , it might seem that way -- but if you 're a normal user , it 's an unspeakable pain in the ass .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Wait... what? You open by telling us that you have to perform custom tuning on the filesystem for certain applications, and later assert that "ZFS is extremely simple to use.
"[cue the car analogy]That's like claiming you have to open the hood on a car and tinker with the engine depending on what kind of road you're driving on, and then asserting that the car is "extremely easy to use.
" If you mess with your engine on a regular basis, it might seem that way -- but if you're a normal user, it's an unspeakable pain in the ass.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28368725</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245250920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually, you can pull a USB stick with ZFS. Basically, Sun wasn't thinking it'd be used like this, and in a situation where a device went away and there were no replicas, it'd cause a kernel panic, taking the ultra-ultra-conservative approach to avoid data corruption at all costs. Pretty much direct response to some user complaints, there's now a per-pool setting that allows the user to dictate behavior on pool failure. If a drive is yoinked, ZFS, being ever-vigilant, will simply hold on to those transactions until it sees the device again. Can lead to screwiness if it's remounted somewhere else and then brought back, but it's not really been tweaked to work nice with removables yet, it's true. The fact that FAT32 is still the standard for this, though, means nobody really cares.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , you can pull a USB stick with ZFS .
Basically , Sun was n't thinking it 'd be used like this , and in a situation where a device went away and there were no replicas , it 'd cause a kernel panic , taking the ultra-ultra-conservative approach to avoid data corruption at all costs .
Pretty much direct response to some user complaints , there 's now a per-pool setting that allows the user to dictate behavior on pool failure .
If a drive is yoinked , ZFS , being ever-vigilant , will simply hold on to those transactions until it sees the device again .
Can lead to screwiness if it 's remounted somewhere else and then brought back , but it 's not really been tweaked to work nice with removables yet , it 's true .
The fact that FAT32 is still the standard for this , though , means nobody really cares .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, you can pull a USB stick with ZFS.
Basically, Sun wasn't thinking it'd be used like this, and in a situation where a device went away and there were no replicas, it'd cause a kernel panic, taking the ultra-ultra-conservative approach to avoid data corruption at all costs.
Pretty much direct response to some user complaints, there's now a per-pool setting that allows the user to dictate behavior on pool failure.
If a drive is yoinked, ZFS, being ever-vigilant, will simply hold on to those transactions until it sees the device again.
Can lead to screwiness if it's remounted somewhere else and then brought back, but it's not really been tweaked to work nice with removables yet, it's true.
The fact that FAT32 is still the standard for this, though, means nobody really cares.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277905</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Ant P.</author>
	<datestamp>1244639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>UDF should work in theory (since it's the standard filesystem for DVDs), but Windows' brain damage as usual makes it useless as a general purpose FS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>UDF should work in theory ( since it 's the standard filesystem for DVDs ) , but Windows ' brain damage as usual makes it useless as a general purpose FS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UDF should work in theory (since it's the standard filesystem for DVDs), but Windows' brain damage as usual makes it useless as a general purpose FS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244624460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot" title="wikipedia.org">Slashdot</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p>Slashdot, sometimes abbreviated as<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/.,[1] is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge, Inc. It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated current affairs news with a "nerdy" slant.</p></div></blockquote><p>(for those that got here by accident... you can't leave them out).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Slashdot [ wikipedia.org ] Slashdot , sometimes abbreviated as /. , [ 1 ] is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge , Inc. It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated current affairs news with a " nerdy " slant .
( for those that got here by accident... you ca n't leave them out ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Slashdot [wikipedia.org] Slashdot, sometimes abbreviated as /.,[1] is a technology-related news website owned by SourceForge, Inc. It features user-submitted and editor-evaluated current affairs news with a "nerdy" slant.
(for those that got here by accident... you can't leave them out).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278395</id>
	<title>ZFS not ready?</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1244643300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Well, I've been using ZFS for several years on several different machines with mixes of mirrored and RAID-Z configurations.  Since that time, I've never lost one bit of data.  It has survived power-supply failures, lightning strikes that fried the motherboard, flaky I/O cards, and human error.  I understand that the implementation on Mac OS/X may be buggy, but it's not inherent to ZFS.

I've several Macs doing time-machine to networked ZFS drives.  It's definitely the filesystem I'd like to have everywhere.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Well , I 've been using ZFS for several years on several different machines with mixes of mirrored and RAID-Z configurations .
Since that time , I 've never lost one bit of data .
It has survived power-supply failures , lightning strikes that fried the motherboard , flaky I/O cards , and human error .
I understand that the implementation on Mac OS/X may be buggy , but it 's not inherent to ZFS .
I 've several Macs doing time-machine to networked ZFS drives .
It 's definitely the filesystem I 'd like to have everywhere .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well, I've been using ZFS for several years on several different machines with mixes of mirrored and RAID-Z configurations.
Since that time, I've never lost one bit of data.
It has survived power-supply failures, lightning strikes that fried the motherboard, flaky I/O cards, and human error.
I understand that the implementation on Mac OS/X may be buggy, but it's not inherent to ZFS.
I've several Macs doing time-machine to networked ZFS drives.
It's definitely the filesystem I'd like to have everywhere.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280271</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Hatta</author>
	<datestamp>1244651400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I really don't want Microsoft writing to my ext3 partitions anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I really do n't want Microsoft writing to my ext3 partitions anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I really don't want Microsoft writing to my ext3 partitions anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276741</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244626740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Hmm.. karma whore much?</p><p>I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.</p></div><p>Was helpful for me, I had no idea what ZFS is. And if I'm not going to RTFA, I'm sure as hell not going to Google it.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm.. karma whore much ? I 'm sure 99.9 \ % of the people on Slashdot , who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is , and those who do n't are perfectly capable of entering the term " ZFS " into Google.Was helpful for me , I had no idea what ZFS is .
And if I 'm not going to RTFA , I 'm sure as hell not going to Google it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.. karma whore much?I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.Was helpful for me, I had no idea what ZFS is.
And if I'm not going to RTFA, I'm sure as hell not going to Google it.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280657</id>
	<title>Re:KILL HFS+ WITH FIRE</title>
	<author>plus\_M</author>
	<datestamp>1244653140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>&#194;\(&#194;\_o)/&#194;
<br> <br>
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a puzzled-looking face with arms upraised in a questioning gesture.
<br> <br>
Why doesn't slashdot support Unicode again?</htmltext>
<tokenext>  \ (   \ _o ) /   In case you ca n't tell , this is supposed to be a puzzled-looking face with arms upraised in a questioning gesture .
Why does n't slashdot support Unicode again ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Â\(Â\_o)/Â
 
In case you can't tell, this is supposed to be a puzzled-looking face with arms upraised in a questioning gesture.
Why doesn't slashdot support Unicode again?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284563</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>MauriceV</author>
	<datestamp>1244625480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The UER of enterprise SATA disks has reached 10^15 a while ago. See <a href="http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda\_es/" title="seagate.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda\_es/</a> [seagate.com].</p><p>And SAS drives are soon arriving in TWO TB: <a href="http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/constellation/constellation\_es/" title="seagate.com" rel="nofollow">http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/constellation/constellation\_es/</a> [seagate.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The UER of enterprise SATA disks has reached 10 ^ 15 a while ago .
See http : //www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda \ _es/ [ seagate.com ] .And SAS drives are soon arriving in TWO TB : http : //www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/constellation/constellation \ _es/ [ seagate.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The UER of enterprise SATA disks has reached 10^15 a while ago.
See http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/barracuda\_es/ [seagate.com].And SAS drives are soon arriving in TWO TB: http://www.seagate.com/www/en-us/products/servers/constellation/constellation\_es/ [seagate.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277473</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278579</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244644260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just like it would be enough just to unmount a Veritas filesystem, and then unplug a usb drive with the VxFS as well.</p><p>ZFS, like VxVM is a volume manager, the fact that the filesystem component is part of the VM, rather than a separate product isn't a big issue.</p><p>zpool export poolname (which handles unmounting as well)<br>unplug usb drive</p><p>plug usb drive in elsewhere<br>zpool import poolname</p><p>wow - so damned hard.</p><p>ZFS works very well, and we've never had a problem with it in production.<br>Sounds to me like the Apple programmers are just plain clueless.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just like it would be enough just to unmount a Veritas filesystem , and then unplug a usb drive with the VxFS as well.ZFS , like VxVM is a volume manager , the fact that the filesystem component is part of the VM , rather than a separate product is n't a big issue.zpool export poolname ( which handles unmounting as well ) unplug usb driveplug usb drive in elsewherezpool import poolnamewow - so damned hard.ZFS works very well , and we 've never had a problem with it in production.Sounds to me like the Apple programmers are just plain clueless .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just like it would be enough just to unmount a Veritas filesystem, and then unplug a usb drive with the VxFS as well.ZFS, like VxVM is a volume manager, the fact that the filesystem component is part of the VM, rather than a separate product isn't a big issue.zpool export poolname (which handles unmounting as well)unplug usb driveplug usb drive in elsewherezpool import poolnamewow - so damned hard.ZFS works very well, and we've never had a problem with it in production.Sounds to me like the Apple programmers are just plain clueless.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28289595</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>hotfireball</author>
	<datestamp>1244657820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a <b>specific setup of snapshots</b>.</p></div><p>What-what? Especially what means your statement about "specific setup of snapshots"?.. Unstable system if you pull the power? Go install VirtualBox, run some heavy-writing process on open solaris and start enjoy tearing it down by powering off virtual machine (i.e. kill -9). If you can to destroy it this way, of course. Also do the *same* on ext3 or especially XFS and see which FS will go nuts first. I bet ZFS will work rock stable, while two others will need fsck or even restore from backup (XFS especially).</p><p>I am not saying ZFS is completely saint, but just I have an allergy to some portion for BS, so excuse me.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>like unusable system , if you pull the power , and pull the power again while it is restarting ; Like slowness under specific conditions ; like rendering the file system unbootable , reproducibly , when using a specific setup of snapshots.What-what ?
Especially what means your statement about " specific setup of snapshots " ? . .
Unstable system if you pull the power ?
Go install VirtualBox , run some heavy-writing process on open solaris and start enjoy tearing it down by powering off virtual machine ( i.e .
kill -9 ) .
If you can to destroy it this way , of course .
Also do the * same * on ext3 or especially XFS and see which FS will go nuts first .
I bet ZFS will work rock stable , while two others will need fsck or even restore from backup ( XFS especially ) .I am not saying ZFS is completely saint , but just I have an allergy to some portion for BS , so excuse me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a specific setup of snapshots.What-what?
Especially what means your statement about "specific setup of snapshots"?..
Unstable system if you pull the power?
Go install VirtualBox, run some heavy-writing process on open solaris and start enjoy tearing it down by powering off virtual machine (i.e.
kill -9).
If you can to destroy it this way, of course.
Also do the *same* on ext3 or especially XFS and see which FS will go nuts first.
I bet ZFS will work rock stable, while two others will need fsck or even restore from backup (XFS especially).I am not saying ZFS is completely saint, but just I have an allergy to some portion for BS, so excuse me.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278729</id>
	<title>The Dilbert Principle, Software Devel, filesystems</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1244644980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Please contemplate the reason that Google recently begged and pleaded that only developers download the *developer* release of Google Chrome for Mac and Linux, and begged people not to blog and whine and bitch about its shortcomings.  (They were aware of its shortcomings.  It's a work in progress.)
<br> <br>
If you want to know more about filesystems, start here:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystems" title="wikipedia.org">Filesystems @ Wikipedia (Hint:  the blue words are links.  Click on them to read and learn even more.)</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
If you want to know more about ZFS, start here:<br>
<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS" title="wikipedia.org">ZFS</a> [wikipedia.org]
<br> <br>
If you want to know more about designing and building filesystems, there is an excellent discussion here (this book should be required reeading for all software developers and systems administrators, regardless of what types of systems you tend):<br>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/Design-Implementation-Operating-Addison-Wesley-Systems/dp/0201549794/ref=pd\_sim\_b\_6" title="amazon.com">The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System</a> [amazon.com]
<br> <br>
If you want to know more about the chief failing of the human intellect (our own limitations) start here:<br>
<a href="http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2000/01/18/MN73840.DTL" title="sfgate.com"> Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find: They're blind to own failings, others' skills </a> [sfgate.com] <br>

Personally, (just between you and me, the internet, and alien archeologists a billion years from now) I interpret this finding to be scientific evidence supporting The Dilbert Principle:  "People are stupid."  That is to say, we are all stupid about most things, most of the time.  The trick is to figure out when you don't know what you're talking about, at which point you stop talking, and start reading or asking questions.
<br> <br>
Complex and revolutionary software systems, like good food, take time.  ZFS has tremendous potential.  It might not be finished yet, or Apple might take the lessons learned from ZFS and use them in a different way (HFSEFK - HFS Extremely Fraking Cool).</htmltext>
<tokenext>Please contemplate the reason that Google recently begged and pleaded that only developers download the * developer * release of Google Chrome for Mac and Linux , and begged people not to blog and whine and bitch about its shortcomings .
( They were aware of its shortcomings .
It 's a work in progress .
) If you want to know more about filesystems , start here : Filesystems @ Wikipedia ( Hint : the blue words are links .
Click on them to read and learn even more .
) [ wikipedia.org ] If you want to know more about ZFS , start here : ZFS [ wikipedia.org ] If you want to know more about designing and building filesystems , there is an excellent discussion here ( this book should be required reeading for all software developers and systems administrators , regardless of what types of systems you tend ) : The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System [ amazon.com ] If you want to know more about the chief failing of the human intellect ( our own limitations ) start here : Incompetent People Really Have No Clue , Studies Find : They 're blind to own failings , others ' skills [ sfgate.com ] Personally , ( just between you and me , the internet , and alien archeologists a billion years from now ) I interpret this finding to be scientific evidence supporting The Dilbert Principle : " People are stupid .
" That is to say , we are all stupid about most things , most of the time .
The trick is to figure out when you do n't know what you 're talking about , at which point you stop talking , and start reading or asking questions .
Complex and revolutionary software systems , like good food , take time .
ZFS has tremendous potential .
It might not be finished yet , or Apple might take the lessons learned from ZFS and use them in a different way ( HFSEFK - HFS Extremely Fraking Cool ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Please contemplate the reason that Google recently begged and pleaded that only developers download the *developer* release of Google Chrome for Mac and Linux, and begged people not to blog and whine and bitch about its shortcomings.
(They were aware of its shortcomings.
It's a work in progress.
)
 
If you want to know more about filesystems, start here:
Filesystems @ Wikipedia (Hint:  the blue words are links.
Click on them to read and learn even more.
) [wikipedia.org]
 
If you want to know more about ZFS, start here:
ZFS [wikipedia.org]
 
If you want to know more about designing and building filesystems, there is an excellent discussion here (this book should be required reeading for all software developers and systems administrators, regardless of what types of systems you tend):
The Design and Implementation of the 4.4 BSD Operating System [amazon.com]
 
If you want to know more about the chief failing of the human intellect (our own limitations) start here:
 Incompetent People Really Have No Clue, Studies Find: They're blind to own failings, others' skills  [sfgate.com] 

Personally, (just between you and me, the internet, and alien archeologists a billion years from now) I interpret this finding to be scientific evidence supporting The Dilbert Principle:  "People are stupid.
"  That is to say, we are all stupid about most things, most of the time.
The trick is to figure out when you don't know what you're talking about, at which point you stop talking, and start reading or asking questions.
Complex and revolutionary software systems, like good food, take time.
ZFS has tremendous potential.
It might not be finished yet, or Apple might take the lessons learned from ZFS and use them in a different way (HFSEFK - HFS Extremely Fraking Cool).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278531</id>
	<title>And what's left is still crap.</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1244644020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>:-D</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>: -D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>:-D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285087</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Eil</author>
	<datestamp>1244627460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>That would allow me to store all my work on one partition, and access it from Mac OS X, from Windows via Boot Camp, or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion.</p></div></blockquote><p>Most of us handle this by setting up a NAS that exports the filesystem as CIFS, which is supported by every major OS. Not only does this mean you can mount the filesystem from different operating systems, but also from different computers. And it makes backups a snap. The caveat is that this limits disk access speed to the speed of your network. If that isn't acceptable, then you really need a more complex (read: expensive) solution than either this or the one you propose.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>That would allow me to store all my work on one partition , and access it from Mac OS X , from Windows via Boot Camp , or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion.Most of us handle this by setting up a NAS that exports the filesystem as CIFS , which is supported by every major OS .
Not only does this mean you can mount the filesystem from different operating systems , but also from different computers .
And it makes backups a snap .
The caveat is that this limits disk access speed to the speed of your network .
If that is n't acceptable , then you really need a more complex ( read : expensive ) solution than either this or the one you propose .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That would allow me to store all my work on one partition, and access it from Mac OS X, from Windows via Boot Camp, or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion.Most of us handle this by setting up a NAS that exports the filesystem as CIFS, which is supported by every major OS.
Not only does this mean you can mount the filesystem from different operating systems, but also from different computers.
And it makes backups a snap.
The caveat is that this limits disk access speed to the speed of your network.
If that isn't acceptable, then you really need a more complex (read: expensive) solution than either this or the one you propose.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011</id>
	<title>Death knell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244575320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I certainly hope this isn't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OSX.</p></div><p>More like the last nail in the coffin . . .</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I certainly hope this is n't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OSX.More like the last nail in the coffin .
. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I certainly hope this isn't the first foot in the grave for ZFS on OSX.More like the last nail in the coffin .
. .
	</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>JohnFluxx</author>
	<datestamp>1244630940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate.  Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it.  NTFS on the other hand has to be reverse engineered.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , it 's almost as if Microsoft do n't want to inter-operate .
Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code , yet MS do n't implement it .
NTFS on the other hand has to be reverse engineered .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate.
Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it.
NTFS on the other hand has to be reverse engineered.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277313</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What about a pony?</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; -dZ.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What about a pony ?
            -dZ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What about a pony?
            -dZ.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279745</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did this troll get voted up ? Oh wait this is Lunix land..</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did this troll get voted up ?
Oh wait this is Lunix land. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did this troll get voted up ?
Oh wait this is Lunix land..</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277395</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you are using ZFS via FUSE then it's something else. Apple has not implemented WRITE ability in their ZFS "port", they only support READING, so I'm not sure what you used to write ZFS from OS X, but it wasn't anything Apple coded.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you are using ZFS via FUSE then it 's something else .
Apple has not implemented WRITE ability in their ZFS " port " , they only support READING , so I 'm not sure what you used to write ZFS from OS X , but it was n't anything Apple coded .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you are using ZFS via FUSE then it's something else.
Apple has not implemented WRITE ability in their ZFS "port", they only support READING, so I'm not sure what you used to write ZFS from OS X, but it wasn't anything Apple coded.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280525</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244652660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:<br>1. has to be simple to use<br>2. has to be rock solid </i></p><p>HAHAHAHAHA! ROTFLMFAO!<br>Sounds like you have drunk the Apple coolaid.  "Rock Solid" and "Apple" are not two words that should go into the same sentence.  Sure OS X is fairly stable for everyday use, but the vast majority of their other software is absolute garbage when it comes to quality and stability.   Thanks for the laugh though, it made my day.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of ( what I imagine are ) Apple 's criteria : 1. has to be simple to use2 .
has to be rock solid HAHAHAHAHA !
ROTFLMFAO ! Sounds like you have drunk the Apple coolaid .
" Rock Solid " and " Apple " are not two words that should go into the same sentence .
Sure OS X is fairly stable for everyday use , but the vast majority of their other software is absolute garbage when it comes to quality and stability .
Thanks for the laugh though , it made my day .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:1. has to be simple to use2.
has to be rock solid HAHAHAHAHA!
ROTFLMFAO!Sounds like you have drunk the Apple coolaid.
"Rock Solid" and "Apple" are not two words that should go into the same sentence.
Sure OS X is fairly stable for everyday use, but the vast majority of their other software is absolute garbage when it comes to quality and stability.
Thanks for the laugh though, it made my day.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276183</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Any copy-on-write system needs a scratchpad area to be effective.</p><p>Were you unable to scale the disks a bit past your workload size?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Any copy-on-write system needs a scratchpad area to be effective.Were you unable to scale the disks a bit past your workload size ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Any copy-on-write system needs a scratchpad area to be effective.Were you unable to scale the disks a bit past your workload size?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276191</id>
	<title>Re:One less "feature"</title>
	<author>AccUser</author>
	<datestamp>1244577240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded...  I guess I'll keep on waiting.</p></div><p>Heck, if it really never needs to be upgrades, I would say hang on in there until it works. It will be worth the wait.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded... I guess I 'll keep on waiting.Heck , if it really never needs to be upgrades , I would say hang on in there until it works .
It will be worth the wait .
; - )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded...  I guess I'll keep on waiting.Heck, if it really never needs to be upgrades, I would say hang on in there until it works.
It will be worth the wait.
;-)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276419</id>
	<title>But...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244666100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS can store more than 2^128 different files! That is more than the particles in the entire universe! Please put back the specs apple; think about God for christ's shake</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS can store more than 2 ^ 128 different files !
That is more than the particles in the entire universe !
Please put back the specs apple ; think about God for christ 's shake</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS can store more than 2^128 different files!
That is more than the particles in the entire universe!
Please put back the specs apple; think about God for christ's shake</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276287</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Black Sabbath</author>
	<datestamp>1244664780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I should probably expand on criterion 1 ("simple to use"):
<br> <br>
ZFS has an absolute ton of features. Providing access to these in a meaningful and intuitive way would NOT have been easy. Its very hard to make a complex tool, "simple to use".
<br> <br>
Nevertheless, I found playing with ZFS fun and strongly recommend it to those nerdier than the average nerd.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I should probably expand on criterion 1 ( " simple to use " ) : ZFS has an absolute ton of features .
Providing access to these in a meaningful and intuitive way would NOT have been easy .
Its very hard to make a complex tool , " simple to use " .
Nevertheless , I found playing with ZFS fun and strongly recommend it to those nerdier than the average nerd .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I should probably expand on criterion 1 ("simple to use"):
 
ZFS has an absolute ton of features.
Providing access to these in a meaningful and intuitive way would NOT have been easy.
Its very hard to make a complex tool, "simple to use".
Nevertheless, I found playing with ZFS fun and strongly recommend it to those nerdier than the average nerd.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277139</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>RegularFry</author>
	<datestamp>1244631120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In theory, I think UDF should work for this. I've not had much luck in my brief attempts, though.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In theory , I think UDF should work for this .
I 've not had much luck in my brief attempts , though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In theory, I think UDF should work for this.
I've not had much luck in my brief attempts, though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276585</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>lauwersw</author>
	<datestamp>1244625180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Sun changed to ZFS as the default file system in one of their last Solaris 10 updates. I can't believe they would do that if it wasn't completely ready according to them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Sun changed to ZFS as the default file system in one of their last Solaris 10 updates .
I ca n't believe they would do that if it was n't completely ready according to them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Sun changed to ZFS as the default file system in one of their last Solaris 10 updates.
I can't believe they would do that if it wasn't completely ready according to them.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277685</id>
	<title>Re:Well fuck it, we're going to 128 bits</title>
	<author>x4r</author>
	<datestamp>1244637780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>i STROGLY suggested you learn more about IPv6, before.
IPv6 is ALOT more, than A6 NS records(yep, 128-bit).
v6 have NUMEROUS features, provides awesome advantages in security and manageability to both consumer, ISP and buziness.

p.s.
i mean not only hierarchy(TLA/NLA&amp;etc branches), and transparent content protection(superseeds IPSec).</htmltext>
<tokenext>i STROGLY suggested you learn more about IPv6 , before .
IPv6 is ALOT more , than A6 NS records ( yep , 128-bit ) .
v6 have NUMEROUS features , provides awesome advantages in security and manageability to both consumer , ISP and buziness .
p.s . i mean not only hierarchy ( TLA/NLA&amp;etc branches ) , and transparent content protection ( superseeds IPSec ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>i STROGLY suggested you learn more about IPv6, before.
IPv6 is ALOT more, than A6 NS records(yep, 128-bit).
v6 have NUMEROUS features, provides awesome advantages in security and manageability to both consumer, ISP and buziness.
p.s.
i mean not only hierarchy(TLA/NLA&amp;etc branches), and transparent content protection(superseeds IPSec).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275991</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277511</id>
	<title>ZFS or Btrfs</title>
	<author>r45d15</author>
	<datestamp>1244635740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Afaik Btrfs, which is roughly the Linux version of ZFS, has been started by Oracle (developers) and then embraced by Red Hat and alikes. So I'm wondering what are Oracle's plans about Btrfs after acquiring ZFS through Sun?</htmltext>
<tokenext>Afaik Btrfs , which is roughly the Linux version of ZFS , has been started by Oracle ( developers ) and then embraced by Red Hat and alikes .
So I 'm wondering what are Oracle 's plans about Btrfs after acquiring ZFS through Sun ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Afaik Btrfs, which is roughly the Linux version of ZFS, has been started by Oracle (developers) and then embraced by Red Hat and alikes.
So I'm wondering what are Oracle's plans about Btrfs after acquiring ZFS through Sun?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276179</id>
	<title>Re:Larry effect again?</title>
	<author>ildon</author>
	<datestamp>1244577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm thinking Balki effect.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking Balki effect .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking Balki effect.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280839</id>
	<title>Re:KILL HFS+ WITH FIRE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244653800000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>(.)(.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( . ) ( .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(.)(.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276691</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1244626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why would Oracle want to make it hard to use ZFS?  ZFS has an uphill battle to gain acceptance anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Oracle want to make it hard to use ZFS ?
ZFS has an uphill battle to gain acceptance anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Oracle want to make it hard to use ZFS?
ZFS has an uphill battle to gain acceptance anyway.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279645</id>
	<title>Re:Larry effect again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244648640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I'm thinking Balki effect.</p></div><p>Wow, you just don't hear many Perfect Strangers jokes anymore.  I've seen Cousin Larry on TV once in the last decade, on the witness stand on Law and Order.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm thinking Balki effect.Wow , you just do n't hear many Perfect Strangers jokes anymore .
I 've seen Cousin Larry on TV once in the last decade , on the witness stand on Law and Order .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm thinking Balki effect.Wow, you just don't hear many Perfect Strangers jokes anymore.
I've seen Cousin Larry on TV once in the last decade, on the witness stand on Law and Order.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276179</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278477</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1244643780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Actually judging from the ignorant posts, 99\% may be capable, but only 1\% are actually doing it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually judging from the ignorant posts , 99 \ % may be capable , but only 1 \ % are actually doing it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually judging from the ignorant posts, 99\% may be capable, but only 1\% are actually doing it.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279257</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>diegocgteleline.es</author>
	<datestamp>1244647200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.</i></p><p>Yeah, Sun's marketing would like you to think that since ZFS filesystem research has become irrelevant. But that's stupid. ZFS is just another filesystem - a good one, but just that. We will see new filesystems.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is a shame , since if it did , ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.Yeah , Sun 's marketing would like you to think that since ZFS filesystem research has become irrelevant .
But that 's stupid .
ZFS is just another filesystem - a good one , but just that .
We will see new filesystems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.Yeah, Sun's marketing would like you to think that since ZFS filesystem research has become irrelevant.
But that's stupid.
ZFS is just another filesystem - a good one, but just that.
We will see new filesystems.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</id>
	<title>ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext>I've <a href="http://macoverdrive.blogspot.com/" title="blogspot.com">played around</a> [blogspot.com] with ZFS on the Mac a little bit.
I've also played with ZFS at work (Sun UltraSPARC platforms) where we went from true believers to backing away rapidly (let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full).
<br> <br>
I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:
<br>1. has to be simple to use
<br>2. has to be rock solid
<br>
<br>There's a good chance it failed at both.

I'm not saying that ZFS is crap. Personally I think its a brilliant design, however it needs a bit more sunlight before its ready for the Steve.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've played around [ blogspot.com ] with ZFS on the Mac a little bit .
I 've also played with ZFS at work ( Sun UltraSPARC platforms ) where we went from true believers to backing away rapidly ( let 's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full ) .
I 'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of ( what I imagine are ) Apple 's criteria : 1. has to be simple to use 2. has to be rock solid There 's a good chance it failed at both .
I 'm not saying that ZFS is crap .
Personally I think its a brilliant design , however it needs a bit more sunlight before its ready for the Steve .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've played around [blogspot.com] with ZFS on the Mac a little bit.
I've also played with ZFS at work (Sun UltraSPARC platforms) where we went from true believers to backing away rapidly (let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full).
I'm guessing that ZFS failed to meet at least one of (what I imagine are) Apple's criteria:
1. has to be simple to use
2. has to be rock solid

There's a good chance it failed at both.
I'm not saying that ZFS is crap.
Personally I think its a brilliant design, however it needs a bit more sunlight before its ready for the Steve.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281129</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244654880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>(for those that got here by accident... you can't leave them out).</p></div></blockquote><p>Thankfully, wikipedia has been making headway there too.<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_contraception" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_contraception</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>( for those that got here by accident... you ca n't leave them out ) .Thankfully , wikipedia has been making headway there too.http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency \ _contraception [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(for those that got here by accident... you can't leave them out).Thankfully, wikipedia has been making headway there too.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emergency\_contraception [wikipedia.org]
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28290091</id>
	<title>Perhaps a closer look at ZFS is in order...</title>
	<author>NateTech</author>
	<datestamp>1244662740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Ask some folks running ZFS if they're experiencing problems... like "sorry, your data's gone" types of problems.  Perhaps Apple's smartly just stepping back from the edge.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ask some folks running ZFS if they 're experiencing problems... like " sorry , your data 's gone " types of problems .
Perhaps Apple 's smartly just stepping back from the edge .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Ask some folks running ZFS if they're experiencing problems... like "sorry, your data's gone" types of problems.
Perhaps Apple's smartly just stepping back from the edge.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281657</id>
	<title>What about the other side?</title>
	<author>HumanEmulator</author>
	<datestamp>1244656920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Just playing devil's advocate: All the posts here seem to be trying to figure out what's wrong with ZFS to cause Apple to yank it out, but what if ZFS is fine and there's some big feature they're working on for HFS+ that they couldn't duplicate in ZFS?</p><p>I admit it's much more likely they just don't want to maintain full support for multiple filesystems, which is what they'd have to do because there's no way they're putting ZFS on iPhones and iPod Touches anytime soon.</p><p>Either way, the really telling thing is they aren't talking about ZFS in Mac OS X Server. If they had any plan for a ZFS future, it would start there much like the way HFS+ Journaling was initially a Mac OS X Server feature. (Introduced in OS X Server 10.2.2 and rolled out to non-server OS X in 10.3.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Just playing devil 's advocate : All the posts here seem to be trying to figure out what 's wrong with ZFS to cause Apple to yank it out , but what if ZFS is fine and there 's some big feature they 're working on for HFS + that they could n't duplicate in ZFS ? I admit it 's much more likely they just do n't want to maintain full support for multiple filesystems , which is what they 'd have to do because there 's no way they 're putting ZFS on iPhones and iPod Touches anytime soon.Either way , the really telling thing is they are n't talking about ZFS in Mac OS X Server .
If they had any plan for a ZFS future , it would start there much like the way HFS + Journaling was initially a Mac OS X Server feature .
( Introduced in OS X Server 10.2.2 and rolled out to non-server OS X in 10.3 .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Just playing devil's advocate: All the posts here seem to be trying to figure out what's wrong with ZFS to cause Apple to yank it out, but what if ZFS is fine and there's some big feature they're working on for HFS+ that they couldn't duplicate in ZFS?I admit it's much more likely they just don't want to maintain full support for multiple filesystems, which is what they'd have to do because there's no way they're putting ZFS on iPhones and iPod Touches anytime soon.Either way, the really telling thing is they aren't talking about ZFS in Mac OS X Server.
If they had any plan for a ZFS future, it would start there much like the way HFS+ Journaling was initially a Mac OS X Server feature.
(Introduced in OS X Server 10.2.2 and rolled out to non-server OS X in 10.3.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>udippel</author>
	<datestamp>1244625540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>More like the last nail in the coffin . . . </i></p><p>Which is what I hope. Having tried forth and back over the last years, trying to convince myself, that it would fulfill its promises (and it promises a lot! and all beautiful things) one day or another.<br>It simply didn't. Which <b>is</b> a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.<br>But even in 2009, it suffers from serious problems, just read the ZFS list in OpenSolaris. Basic things, that is.<br>Like boot corruption; like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a specific setup of snapshots.<br>The latter, not addressed on the mailing list, killed our interest immediately.<br>Not to forget some arrogance of the Sun engineers when it turned out that you cannot simply unplug a USB-drive. And it won't be enough, to umount it, neither. If you want the data to be there, sure, after the removal, you have to export the drive. Now tell this to Aunt Tilly. Or me, when I stumble over a USB-cable and out it is. And my data, as confirmed on the mailing list, potentially gone forever; with, confirmed, no tool available for recovery.</p><p>My last hope for it, had been that the engineers at Apple were able to give it the life-line needed to provide reliable Time-Machines (the snapshots of ZFS are just perfect therefore), but obviously, they have given up just as well.</p><p>I bet that something like ZFS will resurrect, one day or another. It simply has to. But ZFS as of today is more like Leonardo's drawings of a copter, compared to an Apache.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>More like the last nail in the coffin .
. .
Which is what I hope .
Having tried forth and back over the last years , trying to convince myself , that it would fulfill its promises ( and it promises a lot !
and all beautiful things ) one day or another.It simply did n't .
Which is a shame , since if it did , ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.But even in 2009 , it suffers from serious problems , just read the ZFS list in OpenSolaris .
Basic things , that is.Like boot corruption ; like unusable system , if you pull the power , and pull the power again while it is restarting ; Like slowness under specific conditions ; like rendering the file system unbootable , reproducibly , when using a specific setup of snapshots.The latter , not addressed on the mailing list , killed our interest immediately.Not to forget some arrogance of the Sun engineers when it turned out that you can not simply unplug a USB-drive .
And it wo n't be enough , to umount it , neither .
If you want the data to be there , sure , after the removal , you have to export the drive .
Now tell this to Aunt Tilly .
Or me , when I stumble over a USB-cable and out it is .
And my data , as confirmed on the mailing list , potentially gone forever ; with , confirmed , no tool available for recovery.My last hope for it , had been that the engineers at Apple were able to give it the life-line needed to provide reliable Time-Machines ( the snapshots of ZFS are just perfect therefore ) , but obviously , they have given up just as well.I bet that something like ZFS will resurrect , one day or another .
It simply has to .
But ZFS as of today is more like Leonardo 's drawings of a copter , compared to an Apache .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>More like the last nail in the coffin .
. .
Which is what I hope.
Having tried forth and back over the last years, trying to convince myself, that it would fulfill its promises (and it promises a lot!
and all beautiful things) one day or another.It simply didn't.
Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.But even in 2009, it suffers from serious problems, just read the ZFS list in OpenSolaris.
Basic things, that is.Like boot corruption; like unusable system, if you pull the power, and pull the power again while it is restarting; Like slowness under specific conditions; like rendering the file system unbootable, reproducibly, when using a specific setup of snapshots.The latter, not addressed on the mailing list, killed our interest immediately.Not to forget some arrogance of the Sun engineers when it turned out that you cannot simply unplug a USB-drive.
And it won't be enough, to umount it, neither.
If you want the data to be there, sure, after the removal, you have to export the drive.
Now tell this to Aunt Tilly.
Or me, when I stumble over a USB-cable and out it is.
And my data, as confirmed on the mailing list, potentially gone forever; with, confirmed, no tool available for recovery.My last hope for it, had been that the engineers at Apple were able to give it the life-line needed to provide reliable Time-Machines (the snapshots of ZFS are just perfect therefore), but obviously, they have given up just as well.I bet that something like ZFS will resurrect, one day or another.
It simply has to.
But ZFS as of today is more like Leonardo's drawings of a copter, compared to an Apache.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277115</id>
	<title>VERY, VERY SAD!!!</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244630700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is VERY, VERY SAD!!! I had been comtemplating the thoughts of buying Mac OS X Server (since everyone thought it will only be on OS X Server) for my desktop/MacBook just because I want to use ZFS. Now that ZFS is  no longer the reason, the price for $29 for Mac OS X will be the attractor factor to use OS X, not OS X Server.</p><p>Kevin Pan.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is VERY , VERY SAD ! ! !
I had been comtemplating the thoughts of buying Mac OS X Server ( since everyone thought it will only be on OS X Server ) for my desktop/MacBook just because I want to use ZFS .
Now that ZFS is no longer the reason , the price for $ 29 for Mac OS X will be the attractor factor to use OS X , not OS X Server.Kevin Pan .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is VERY, VERY SAD!!!
I had been comtemplating the thoughts of buying Mac OS X Server (since everyone thought it will only be on OS X Server) for my desktop/MacBook just because I want to use ZFS.
Now that ZFS is  no longer the reason, the price for $29 for Mac OS X will be the attractor factor to use OS X, not OS X Server.Kevin Pan.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281335</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>jhp64</author>
	<datestamp>1244655720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>
<p>You left out the relevant part:</p><p> <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slashdot" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Slashdot</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><blockquote><div><p> People that post comments designed to get more karma, for example mirroring a linked article or presenting a banal groupthink opinion or lame joke, are often referred to as <strong>karma whores</strong>.</p></div> </blockquote></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>You left out the relevant part : Slashdot [ wikipedia.org ] People that post comments designed to get more karma , for example mirroring a linked article or presenting a banal groupthink opinion or lame joke , are often referred to as karma whores .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
You left out the relevant part: Slashdot [wikipedia.org]  People that post comments designed to get more karma, for example mirroring a linked article or presenting a banal groupthink opinion or lame joke, are often referred to as karma whores. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276299</id>
	<title>Why do Apple insist on puling these stunts?</title>
	<author>AnalPerfume</author>
	<datestamp>1244664900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>If something they were planning on including changes somehow not to Apples liking, why do the control freakery thing of removing all past references to it in a vain attempt to rewrite history 1984 style? Is it not enough to just say "well, we've decided not to use it anymore, we have other plans we can't discuss yet."<br><br>People change their minds, even the almighty Steve Jobs won't get everything right (as it finally gets released) first run out. Think about the image they're trying to sell us on here, and imagine it in other contexts to see how believable it is.<br><br>A band writing and recording a song: able to play the whole thing, from start to finish, building riffs, fills, solo etc in one take. Vocals, harmonies etc all done with no practice, all in one take. Instant magic? No, it's shit. ALL bands spend ages refining stuff, getting stuff to work, playing with a riff, altering it slightly, trying variations etc to find a blend that works.<br><br>A writer sitting down to write a novel, and creating a masterpiece on the first draft. Any writer will tell you the first draft is ALWAYS very rough and will often only bear a small similarity to the final work.<br><br>By trying to rewrite history to remove all references that they were planning to use ZFS in some way and now won't is like trying to fool the world into thinking what they use instead was plan A, when it wasn't. Are Apple really this petty and small minded? Are they really so desperate to control their image of "perfection on every try"? Do they have any idea how these stunts just make them look like asshats?<br><br>I'm really not trying to flame here, but we ALL know that end products come from a LOT of ideas, some work, some don't, some work in theory until some other requirement kicks in and makes that part not work. This is a long process of trial and error, this is very natural; it happens on EVERY project, from EVERYONE ELSE, except apparently Apple.<br><br>In this case IT people will remember this latest purge of anything the Apple hierarchy have decided never happened as it is, and not IT people have no clue what a file system is, or that ZFS is one of them.<br><br>It's not as if it's an open source project where a vocal minority of IT skilled people can fork OSX and implement ZFS if Apple don't. What's the worst that can happen? Some will be disappointed until they see what Apple have up their sleeves as an alternate to ZFS which they may or may not know themselves yet. Will they abandon Apple? Not likely, Apple people tend to be very loyal and will continue to throw money at Apple for stuff. They will already have spent a fortune buying vendor locked Apple stuff, so switching to Windows or Linux will be harder. In all likelihood they wouldn't touch Windows with a barge pole as it's what sets them apart from regular PC users, and they won't have heard of Linux. So what have Apple got to lose by leaving the decision / thought processes as they happened?</htmltext>
<tokenext>If something they were planning on including changes somehow not to Apples liking , why do the control freakery thing of removing all past references to it in a vain attempt to rewrite history 1984 style ?
Is it not enough to just say " well , we 've decided not to use it anymore , we have other plans we ca n't discuss yet .
" People change their minds , even the almighty Steve Jobs wo n't get everything right ( as it finally gets released ) first run out .
Think about the image they 're trying to sell us on here , and imagine it in other contexts to see how believable it is.A band writing and recording a song : able to play the whole thing , from start to finish , building riffs , fills , solo etc in one take .
Vocals , harmonies etc all done with no practice , all in one take .
Instant magic ?
No , it 's shit .
ALL bands spend ages refining stuff , getting stuff to work , playing with a riff , altering it slightly , trying variations etc to find a blend that works.A writer sitting down to write a novel , and creating a masterpiece on the first draft .
Any writer will tell you the first draft is ALWAYS very rough and will often only bear a small similarity to the final work.By trying to rewrite history to remove all references that they were planning to use ZFS in some way and now wo n't is like trying to fool the world into thinking what they use instead was plan A , when it was n't .
Are Apple really this petty and small minded ?
Are they really so desperate to control their image of " perfection on every try " ?
Do they have any idea how these stunts just make them look like asshats ? I 'm really not trying to flame here , but we ALL know that end products come from a LOT of ideas , some work , some do n't , some work in theory until some other requirement kicks in and makes that part not work .
This is a long process of trial and error , this is very natural ; it happens on EVERY project , from EVERYONE ELSE , except apparently Apple.In this case IT people will remember this latest purge of anything the Apple hierarchy have decided never happened as it is , and not IT people have no clue what a file system is , or that ZFS is one of them.It 's not as if it 's an open source project where a vocal minority of IT skilled people can fork OSX and implement ZFS if Apple do n't .
What 's the worst that can happen ?
Some will be disappointed until they see what Apple have up their sleeves as an alternate to ZFS which they may or may not know themselves yet .
Will they abandon Apple ?
Not likely , Apple people tend to be very loyal and will continue to throw money at Apple for stuff .
They will already have spent a fortune buying vendor locked Apple stuff , so switching to Windows or Linux will be harder .
In all likelihood they would n't touch Windows with a barge pole as it 's what sets them apart from regular PC users , and they wo n't have heard of Linux .
So what have Apple got to lose by leaving the decision / thought processes as they happened ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something they were planning on including changes somehow not to Apples liking, why do the control freakery thing of removing all past references to it in a vain attempt to rewrite history 1984 style?
Is it not enough to just say "well, we've decided not to use it anymore, we have other plans we can't discuss yet.
"People change their minds, even the almighty Steve Jobs won't get everything right (as it finally gets released) first run out.
Think about the image they're trying to sell us on here, and imagine it in other contexts to see how believable it is.A band writing and recording a song: able to play the whole thing, from start to finish, building riffs, fills, solo etc in one take.
Vocals, harmonies etc all done with no practice, all in one take.
Instant magic?
No, it's shit.
ALL bands spend ages refining stuff, getting stuff to work, playing with a riff, altering it slightly, trying variations etc to find a blend that works.A writer sitting down to write a novel, and creating a masterpiece on the first draft.
Any writer will tell you the first draft is ALWAYS very rough and will often only bear a small similarity to the final work.By trying to rewrite history to remove all references that they were planning to use ZFS in some way and now won't is like trying to fool the world into thinking what they use instead was plan A, when it wasn't.
Are Apple really this petty and small minded?
Are they really so desperate to control their image of "perfection on every try"?
Do they have any idea how these stunts just make them look like asshats?I'm really not trying to flame here, but we ALL know that end products come from a LOT of ideas, some work, some don't, some work in theory until some other requirement kicks in and makes that part not work.
This is a long process of trial and error, this is very natural; it happens on EVERY project, from EVERYONE ELSE, except apparently Apple.In this case IT people will remember this latest purge of anything the Apple hierarchy have decided never happened as it is, and not IT people have no clue what a file system is, or that ZFS is one of them.It's not as if it's an open source project where a vocal minority of IT skilled people can fork OSX and implement ZFS if Apple don't.
What's the worst that can happen?
Some will be disappointed until they see what Apple have up their sleeves as an alternate to ZFS which they may or may not know themselves yet.
Will they abandon Apple?
Not likely, Apple people tend to be very loyal and will continue to throw money at Apple for stuff.
They will already have spent a fortune buying vendor locked Apple stuff, so switching to Windows or Linux will be harder.
In all likelihood they wouldn't touch Windows with a barge pole as it's what sets them apart from regular PC users, and they won't have heard of Linux.
So what have Apple got to lose by leaving the decision / thought processes as they happened?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277945</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244640120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal\_proof" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Proving</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Once" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">once</a> [wikipedia.org] again <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/That" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">that</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org] can't be <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trust\_(social\_sciences)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">trusted</a> [wikipedia.org].<br><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Content\_(media\_and\_publishing)" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">Content</a> [wikipedia.org] <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">is</a> [wikipedia.org] clearly not <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Editor" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">editor</a> [wikipedia.org]-<a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evaluation" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">evaluated</a> [wikipedia.org].</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Proving [ wikipedia.org ] once [ wikipedia.org ] again that [ wikipedia.org ] Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] ca n't be trusted [ wikipedia.org ] .Content [ wikipedia.org ] is [ wikipedia.org ] clearly not editor [ wikipedia.org ] -evaluated [ wikipedia.org ] .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Proving [wikipedia.org] once [wikipedia.org] again that [wikipedia.org] Wikipedia [wikipedia.org] can't be trusted [wikipedia.org].Content [wikipedia.org] is [wikipedia.org] clearly not editor [wikipedia.org]-evaluated [wikipedia.org].</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280159</id>
	<title>file servers are the universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244650920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?</p></div></blockquote><p>
Here's your solution: a second computer and an ethernet cable, running any filesystem you want (ext, xfs, jfs, reiser, whatever), plus an NFS export and maybe Samba.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Which one can you mount on Linux , MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks , and with journaling , long filenames , and maybe extended attributes ?
Here 's your solution : a second computer and an ethernet cable , running any filesystem you want ( ext , xfs , jfs , reiser , whatever ) , plus an NFS export and maybe Samba .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?
Here's your solution: a second computer and an ethernet cable, running any filesystem you want (ext, xfs, jfs, reiser, whatever), plus an NFS export and maybe Samba.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278517</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>check out exFat. It is Microsoft created, has all the features u want. Odds are apple is adding support since it is required as part of the SDXC standard.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>check out exFat .
It is Microsoft created , has all the features u want .
Odds are apple is adding support since it is required as part of the SDXC standard .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>check out exFat.
It is Microsoft created, has all the features u want.
Odds are apple is adding support since it is required as part of the SDXC standard.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019</id>
	<title>Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>KenCrandall</author>
	<datestamp>1244575380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WIth the impending purchase of Sun by Oracle, I'm thinking it could be one of 2 things:</p><p>1) ZFS will be killed and/or de-emphasized and/or re-licensed in such a way that Apple is not comfortable/happy with putting it into Mac OS</p><p>2) It will still be ZFS just not called ZFS anymore (either re-branded or forked by Apple or re-named by Oracle/Sun)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WIth the impending purchase of Sun by Oracle , I 'm thinking it could be one of 2 things : 1 ) ZFS will be killed and/or de-emphasized and/or re-licensed in such a way that Apple is not comfortable/happy with putting it into Mac OS2 ) It will still be ZFS just not called ZFS anymore ( either re-branded or forked by Apple or re-named by Oracle/Sun )</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WIth the impending purchase of Sun by Oracle, I'm thinking it could be one of 2 things:1) ZFS will be killed and/or de-emphasized and/or re-licensed in such a way that Apple is not comfortable/happy with putting it into Mac OS2) It will still be ZFS just not called ZFS anymore (either re-branded or forked by Apple or re-named by Oracle/Sun)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>superposed</author>
	<datestamp>1244636580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>I'm in the same boat. For years I've been looking for a file system can hold files larger than 2GB and can be mounted from Windows and Mac OS X (and maybe Linux). That would allow me to store all my work on one partition, and access it from Mac OS X, from Windows via Boot Camp, or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion. It would also allow me to transfer large files back and forth between my Mac and other Windows computers. I was hoping ZFS would be that file system.<br>
<br>
The last time I checked (the middle of 2008), the only way to do this was via NTFS, and the only read-write support for NTFS on OSX was the MacFUSE NTFS driver, which was pretty slow. <br>
<br>
I just saw that MacDrive 7.2 now <a href="http://assist.mediafour.com/index.php?\_a=knowledgebase&amp;\_j=questiondetails&amp;\_i=76&amp;nav2=General" title="mediafour.com">allows Windows Vista x64</a> [mediafour.com] (my Boot Camp OS) to read HFS disks, so maybe I'll give that a try. There are also <a href="http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2009/05/09/snow-leopards-boot-camp-to-support-hfs-under-windows/" title="roughlydrafted.com">rumors</a> [roughlydrafted.com] that Snow Leopard's Boot Camp utility will include drivers for Windows to read HFS disks, so maybe that will help too.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm in the same boat .
For years I 've been looking for a file system can hold files larger than 2GB and can be mounted from Windows and Mac OS X ( and maybe Linux ) .
That would allow me to store all my work on one partition , and access it from Mac OS X , from Windows via Boot Camp , or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion .
It would also allow me to transfer large files back and forth between my Mac and other Windows computers .
I was hoping ZFS would be that file system .
The last time I checked ( the middle of 2008 ) , the only way to do this was via NTFS , and the only read-write support for NTFS on OSX was the MacFUSE NTFS driver , which was pretty slow .
I just saw that MacDrive 7.2 now allows Windows Vista x64 [ mediafour.com ] ( my Boot Camp OS ) to read HFS disks , so maybe I 'll give that a try .
There are also rumors [ roughlydrafted.com ] that Snow Leopard 's Boot Camp utility will include drivers for Windows to read HFS disks , so maybe that will help too .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm in the same boat.
For years I've been looking for a file system can hold files larger than 2GB and can be mounted from Windows and Mac OS X (and maybe Linux).
That would allow me to store all my work on one partition, and access it from Mac OS X, from Windows via Boot Camp, or from Windows inside Parallels or VMware Fusion.
It would also allow me to transfer large files back and forth between my Mac and other Windows computers.
I was hoping ZFS would be that file system.
The last time I checked (the middle of 2008), the only way to do this was via NTFS, and the only read-write support for NTFS on OSX was the MacFUSE NTFS driver, which was pretty slow.
I just saw that MacDrive 7.2 now allows Windows Vista x64 [mediafour.com] (my Boot Camp OS) to read HFS disks, so maybe I'll give that a try.
There are also rumors [roughlydrafted.com] that Snow Leopard's Boot Camp utility will include drivers for Windows to read HFS disks, so maybe that will help too.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28316611</id>
	<title>Re:I see no problem with that</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244818980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>If something isn't "good enough" to make a solid product, then don't include it. This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was.</p></div></blockquote><p>But then why was it released?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If something is n't " good enough " to make a solid product , then do n't include it .
This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was.But then why was it released ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something isn't "good enough" to make a solid product, then don't include it.
This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was.But then why was it released?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281137</id>
	<title>Who's Larry?</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1244654940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you mean, has Oracle management quietly told Sun to back off the ZFS evangalism, I kind of doubt it. It's hard to see why they would even care, at least not enough to risk getting caught doing something that could have nasty consequences &mdash; Oracle's acquisition of Sun still hasn't had federal approval, and illegally interfering with Sun's management would be just the thing to get it turned down.</p><p>The whole ZFS-on-MacOS thing is part of Sun's broader efforts to fight the marginalization of its technologies by open-sourcing them and then evangelizing everybody in sight to adopt them. This has happened not just with ZFS, but also with Solaris, the Sun implementation of Java, and even the Sparc CPU.</p><p>One aspect of this effort has been to push OpenSolaris and ZFS at desktop users. Pushing Apple to fully support ZFS (right now, they only provide a read-only driver) is part of this, as is a big push to get CS students and other hackers to download and use OpenSolaris on their personal PCs.</p><p>There's a certain amount of wishful thinking here. Solaris and ZFS do have very real and important technical advantages over their alternatives. But for a desktop user these advantages are pretty minimal. And to get them, you have to pay a big price in learning to use more complex tools and in not being able to participate in in bigger user communities.</p><p>Apple's response to Sun's ZFS evangelism was initial polite interest, but little positive effort over the long term. Not at all surprising: what use is ZFS to the typical Mac user? If servers were a bigger part of Apple's business it might be different.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you mean , has Oracle management quietly told Sun to back off the ZFS evangalism , I kind of doubt it .
It 's hard to see why they would even care , at least not enough to risk getting caught doing something that could have nasty consequences    Oracle 's acquisition of Sun still has n't had federal approval , and illegally interfering with Sun 's management would be just the thing to get it turned down.The whole ZFS-on-MacOS thing is part of Sun 's broader efforts to fight the marginalization of its technologies by open-sourcing them and then evangelizing everybody in sight to adopt them .
This has happened not just with ZFS , but also with Solaris , the Sun implementation of Java , and even the Sparc CPU.One aspect of this effort has been to push OpenSolaris and ZFS at desktop users .
Pushing Apple to fully support ZFS ( right now , they only provide a read-only driver ) is part of this , as is a big push to get CS students and other hackers to download and use OpenSolaris on their personal PCs.There 's a certain amount of wishful thinking here .
Solaris and ZFS do have very real and important technical advantages over their alternatives .
But for a desktop user these advantages are pretty minimal .
And to get them , you have to pay a big price in learning to use more complex tools and in not being able to participate in in bigger user communities.Apple 's response to Sun 's ZFS evangelism was initial polite interest , but little positive effort over the long term .
Not at all surprising : what use is ZFS to the typical Mac user ?
If servers were a bigger part of Apple 's business it might be different .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you mean, has Oracle management quietly told Sun to back off the ZFS evangalism, I kind of doubt it.
It's hard to see why they would even care, at least not enough to risk getting caught doing something that could have nasty consequences — Oracle's acquisition of Sun still hasn't had federal approval, and illegally interfering with Sun's management would be just the thing to get it turned down.The whole ZFS-on-MacOS thing is part of Sun's broader efforts to fight the marginalization of its technologies by open-sourcing them and then evangelizing everybody in sight to adopt them.
This has happened not just with ZFS, but also with Solaris, the Sun implementation of Java, and even the Sparc CPU.One aspect of this effort has been to push OpenSolaris and ZFS at desktop users.
Pushing Apple to fully support ZFS (right now, they only provide a read-only driver) is part of this, as is a big push to get CS students and other hackers to download and use OpenSolaris on their personal PCs.There's a certain amount of wishful thinking here.
Solaris and ZFS do have very real and important technical advantages over their alternatives.
But for a desktop user these advantages are pretty minimal.
And to get them, you have to pay a big price in learning to use more complex tools and in not being able to participate in in bigger user communities.Apple's response to Sun's ZFS evangelism was initial polite interest, but little positive effort over the long term.
Not at all surprising: what use is ZFS to the typical Mac user?
If servers were a bigger part of Apple's business it might be different.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279309</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244647320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate...</p></div></blockquote><p>You're comparing them to whom? Apple? Have you tried to mount an ext2/ext3 partition under OS X? The best you can get is some Panther-era third-party driver that causes frequent kernel panics on modern systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , it 's almost as if Microsoft do n't want to inter-operate...You 're comparing them to whom ?
Apple ? Have you tried to mount an ext2/ext3 partition under OS X ?
The best you can get is some Panther-era third-party driver that causes frequent kernel panics on modern systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate...You're comparing them to whom?
Apple? Have you tried to mount an ext2/ext3 partition under OS X?
The best you can get is some Panther-era third-party driver that causes frequent kernel panics on modern systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284009</id>
	<title>Re:One less "feature"</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1244666640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I am so liking ZFS on Solaris that having it in 10.6 would have been reason enough for me to by an new iMac (more for the use it instead of FAT32 between my Apple, FreeBSD, and Solaris boxes than anything else really). I currently have the lowest end model of PPC G4 eMac that officially supports 10.5 (Wow did I get lucky, six years ago I was really wondering if the $ premium on the 1GHz SuperDrive model was worth it). It looks that I can put off the purchase of a new iMac until 10.7 since Apple should continue offering security updates for 10.5 until then. Hopefully by then 10.7 will have ZFS support outside of FUSE and then I will gladly open my wallet (maybe I will even have the luxury of having to make the painful decision of whether the $ premium of the bluray writer is worth it).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I am so liking ZFS on Solaris that having it in 10.6 would have been reason enough for me to by an new iMac ( more for the use it instead of FAT32 between my Apple , FreeBSD , and Solaris boxes than anything else really ) .
I currently have the lowest end model of PPC G4 eMac that officially supports 10.5 ( Wow did I get lucky , six years ago I was really wondering if the $ premium on the 1GHz SuperDrive model was worth it ) .
It looks that I can put off the purchase of a new iMac until 10.7 since Apple should continue offering security updates for 10.5 until then .
Hopefully by then 10.7 will have ZFS support outside of FUSE and then I will gladly open my wallet ( maybe I will even have the luxury of having to make the painful decision of whether the $ premium of the bluray writer is worth it ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I am so liking ZFS on Solaris that having it in 10.6 would have been reason enough for me to by an new iMac (more for the use it instead of FAT32 between my Apple, FreeBSD, and Solaris boxes than anything else really).
I currently have the lowest end model of PPC G4 eMac that officially supports 10.5 (Wow did I get lucky, six years ago I was really wondering if the $ premium on the 1GHz SuperDrive model was worth it).
It looks that I can put off the purchase of a new iMac until 10.7 since Apple should continue offering security updates for 10.5 until then.
Hopefully by then 10.7 will have ZFS support outside of FUSE and then I will gladly open my wallet (maybe I will even have the luxury of having to make the painful decision of whether the $ premium of the bluray writer is worth it).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277419</id>
	<title>It's about time...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244634540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS is not it.</p><p>Look at its requirements.  Look at the things you have to do to keep it running efficiently.  Look at the memory footprint.<br>Of course, when you read newsgroups about any technology, you always get a negative view, because all you're seeing are the problems.  And the ZFS fanboys love to point that out.  Fine.</p><p>BUT, I know of no other filesystem that has the kind of problems that this one does.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS is not it.Look at its requirements .
Look at the things you have to do to keep it running efficiently .
Look at the memory footprint.Of course , when you read newsgroups about any technology , you always get a negative view , because all you 're seeing are the problems .
And the ZFS fanboys love to point that out .
Fine.BUT , I know of no other filesystem that has the kind of problems that this one does .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS is not it.Look at its requirements.
Look at the things you have to do to keep it running efficiently.
Look at the memory footprint.Of course, when you read newsgroups about any technology, you always get a negative view, because all you're seeing are the problems.
And the ZFS fanboys love to point that out.
Fine.BUT, I know of no other filesystem that has the kind of problems that this one does.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278009</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>drsmithy</author>
	<datestamp>1244640600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p> <i>Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it.</i>
</p><p>What's in it for them ?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code , yet MS do n't implement it .
What 's in it for them ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext> Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it.
What's in it for them ?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</id>
	<title>I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244576340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?  So far FAT and HFS+ without journaling seem to be about the only choices.  ZFS would have been it if MacOS and Linux both ended up supporting it, but now neither of them do (without precarious hacks!)... so Solaris is off in the corner by itself again.  Bah humbug.</p><p>When I dual-boot my Mac (Linux &amp; Leopard) I'd like to have the same partition for home directory on either system.  A better FS for thumb drives than FAT would be nice, too.</p><p>The situation is utterly pathetic.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which one can you mount on Linux , MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks , and with journaling , long filenames , and maybe extended attributes ?
So far FAT and HFS + without journaling seem to be about the only choices .
ZFS would have been it if MacOS and Linux both ended up supporting it , but now neither of them do ( without precarious hacks ! ) .. .
so Solaris is off in the corner by itself again .
Bah humbug.When I dual-boot my Mac ( Linux &amp; Leopard ) I 'd like to have the same partition for home directory on either system .
A better FS for thumb drives than FAT would be nice , too.The situation is utterly pathetic .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?
So far FAT and HFS+ without journaling seem to be about the only choices.
ZFS would have been it if MacOS and Linux both ended up supporting it, but now neither of them do (without precarious hacks!)...
so Solaris is off in the corner by itself again.
Bah humbug.When I dual-boot my Mac (Linux &amp; Leopard) I'd like to have the same partition for home directory on either system.
A better FS for thumb drives than FAT would be nice, too.The situation is utterly pathetic.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995</id>
	<title>Larry effect again?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244575140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Could this be a Larry effect?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Could this be a Larry effect ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Could this be a Larry effect?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277473</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244635260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.</p></div><p>Sounds like you have a nifty way to ensure undetectable data corruption.  From your description, you're using SATA drives, since SAS/FC aren't even 1TB yet.  RAID-Z is essentially RAID-5, so regenerating the data on the replacement disk requires reading all remaining disks.  If you have N members in your RAID-Z, that means you're doing N(N-1) reads.  SATA has an undetectable bit error rate of 10^-14, or roughly 1 per 12 TB.  With 4 or more members, you're basically guaranteeing at least one error.  In addition, how long does it take for you to move N^2 data (ignoring XOR calculation time), especially if your system is under load?  During that time, you are without redundant data, and losing another drive will lose the use data.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z , placing a new one in , and letting it resilver , then pull the next one , until you have pulled all of them , after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide , so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them ( so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger ) give you the extra space.Sounds like you have a nifty way to ensure undetectable data corruption .
From your description , you 're using SATA drives , since SAS/FC are n't even 1TB yet .
RAID-Z is essentially RAID-5 , so regenerating the data on the replacement disk requires reading all remaining disks .
If you have N members in your RAID-Z , that means you 're doing N ( N-1 ) reads .
SATA has an undetectable bit error rate of 10 ^ -14 , or roughly 1 per 12 TB .
With 4 or more members , you 're basically guaranteeing at least one error .
In addition , how long does it take for you to move N ^ 2 data ( ignoring XOR calculation time ) , especially if your system is under load ?
During that time , you are without redundant data , and losing another drive will lose the use data .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.Sounds like you have a nifty way to ensure undetectable data corruption.
From your description, you're using SATA drives, since SAS/FC aren't even 1TB yet.
RAID-Z is essentially RAID-5, so regenerating the data on the replacement disk requires reading all remaining disks.
If you have N members in your RAID-Z, that means you're doing N(N-1) reads.
SATA has an undetectable bit error rate of 10^-14, or roughly 1 per 12 TB.
With 4 or more members, you're basically guaranteeing at least one error.
In addition, how long does it take for you to move N^2 data (ignoring XOR calculation time), especially if your system is under load?
During that time, you are without redundant data, and losing another drive will lose the use data.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28283167</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>MattBD</author>
	<datestamp>1244663100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I was thinking probably relicensed under the GPL - I guess this would make sense for Oracle to do this as it would mean it could be integrated into the Linux kernel, and if they were to relicense the whole of OpenSolaris under the GPL it wouldn't cause any problems. However, I guess it could mean Apple might not want to use it anymore - my (very!) shaky understanding is that you can't link GPL'd code to code under an incompatible license at compile time, and isn't the license Apple use for their OS kernel incompatible with the GPL? That would mean they could no longer incorporate ZFS into the kernel unless they were to fork it. It could still be implemented in user space, I guess, but that would slow it down, and it would still be impractical to use as the main OS.
And of course there's the issue of Btrfs - will Oracle relicense ZFS so it's Linux compatible when they're already working on a rival? I guess we'll know sometime soon.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I was thinking probably relicensed under the GPL - I guess this would make sense for Oracle to do this as it would mean it could be integrated into the Linux kernel , and if they were to relicense the whole of OpenSolaris under the GPL it would n't cause any problems .
However , I guess it could mean Apple might not want to use it anymore - my ( very !
) shaky understanding is that you ca n't link GPL 'd code to code under an incompatible license at compile time , and is n't the license Apple use for their OS kernel incompatible with the GPL ?
That would mean they could no longer incorporate ZFS into the kernel unless they were to fork it .
It could still be implemented in user space , I guess , but that would slow it down , and it would still be impractical to use as the main OS .
And of course there 's the issue of Btrfs - will Oracle relicense ZFS so it 's Linux compatible when they 're already working on a rival ?
I guess we 'll know sometime soon .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I was thinking probably relicensed under the GPL - I guess this would make sense for Oracle to do this as it would mean it could be integrated into the Linux kernel, and if they were to relicense the whole of OpenSolaris under the GPL it wouldn't cause any problems.
However, I guess it could mean Apple might not want to use it anymore - my (very!
) shaky understanding is that you can't link GPL'd code to code under an incompatible license at compile time, and isn't the license Apple use for their OS kernel incompatible with the GPL?
That would mean they could no longer incorporate ZFS into the kernel unless they were to fork it.
It could still be implemented in user space, I guess, but that would slow it down, and it would still be impractical to use as the main OS.
And of course there's the issue of Btrfs - will Oracle relicense ZFS so it's Linux compatible when they're already working on a rival?
I guess we'll know sometime soon.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Okay, first and foremost it is well known that if you are running a database engine on top of ZFS you have to tune it to that specific database engine. This is well documented, and well described in the ZFS manuals, including steps to be taken to resolve these issues.</p><p>As for the performance degradation when the disks are close to full are being worked on, while this can cause issues (especially if you have a lot of snapshots) any IT worth their salt would not have let the disk get that close to full that it causes issues (I've seen this error once on my production servers, when the disk was at 95\% capacity, I was brought in as a contractor). Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.</p><p>As for 1, ZFS is extremely simple to use. gvinum from FreeBSD, or Linux's LVM are complicated, unnecessarily so, and 2, ZFS has so far proven far more reliable. It has been extremely fast, and has already saved a whole lot of trouble when a disk started failing by giving us a warning that ZFS reads were failing and letting us replace the disk before disaster strikes. Since we started using it in the last year we have had not yet had to resort to finding the backup tapes for a server because a disk went bad in Linux's LVM and bad data was written to other disks and files were lost.</p><p>I don't believe the issue is that ZFS is not ready yet, I don't think that Apple has had the time to make sure that everything fits in with their way everything has to work, certain features that HFS+ can offer are not possible on ZFS yet. Certain tools are relying on very specific HFS+ mechanics and workings (Time machine for example) which would complicate work to replicate that on ZFS.</p><p>While I was looking forward to seeing ZFS in Mac OS X, I doubted that it would be anytime soon, especially since it is a large undertaking making sure that the various parts of the system are all tuned for ZFS, this includes the way the OS caches, the amount of memory it can use for ZFS arc cache, and things along those lines. FreeBSD has slowly been working through those exact issues.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Okay , first and foremost it is well known that if you are running a database engine on top of ZFS you have to tune it to that specific database engine .
This is well documented , and well described in the ZFS manuals , including steps to be taken to resolve these issues.As for the performance degradation when the disks are close to full are being worked on , while this can cause issues ( especially if you have a lot of snapshots ) any IT worth their salt would not have let the disk get that close to full that it causes issues ( I 've seen this error once on my production servers , when the disk was at 95 \ % capacity , I was brought in as a contractor ) .
Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z , placing a new one in , and letting it resilver , then pull the next one , until you have pulled all of them , after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide , so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them ( so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger ) give you the extra space.As for 1 , ZFS is extremely simple to use .
gvinum from FreeBSD , or Linux 's LVM are complicated , unnecessarily so , and 2 , ZFS has so far proven far more reliable .
It has been extremely fast , and has already saved a whole lot of trouble when a disk started failing by giving us a warning that ZFS reads were failing and letting us replace the disk before disaster strikes .
Since we started using it in the last year we have had not yet had to resort to finding the backup tapes for a server because a disk went bad in Linux 's LVM and bad data was written to other disks and files were lost.I do n't believe the issue is that ZFS is not ready yet , I do n't think that Apple has had the time to make sure that everything fits in with their way everything has to work , certain features that HFS + can offer are not possible on ZFS yet .
Certain tools are relying on very specific HFS + mechanics and workings ( Time machine for example ) which would complicate work to replicate that on ZFS.While I was looking forward to seeing ZFS in Mac OS X , I doubted that it would be anytime soon , especially since it is a large undertaking making sure that the various parts of the system are all tuned for ZFS , this includes the way the OS caches , the amount of memory it can use for ZFS arc cache , and things along those lines .
FreeBSD has slowly been working through those exact issues .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Okay, first and foremost it is well known that if you are running a database engine on top of ZFS you have to tune it to that specific database engine.
This is well documented, and well described in the ZFS manuals, including steps to be taken to resolve these issues.As for the performance degradation when the disks are close to full are being worked on, while this can cause issues (especially if you have a lot of snapshots) any IT worth their salt would not have let the disk get that close to full that it causes issues (I've seen this error once on my production servers, when the disk was at 95\% capacity, I was brought in as a contractor).
Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.As for 1, ZFS is extremely simple to use.
gvinum from FreeBSD, or Linux's LVM are complicated, unnecessarily so, and 2, ZFS has so far proven far more reliable.
It has been extremely fast, and has already saved a whole lot of trouble when a disk started failing by giving us a warning that ZFS reads were failing and letting us replace the disk before disaster strikes.
Since we started using it in the last year we have had not yet had to resort to finding the backup tapes for a server because a disk went bad in Linux's LVM and bad data was written to other disks and files were lost.I don't believe the issue is that ZFS is not ready yet, I don't think that Apple has had the time to make sure that everything fits in with their way everything has to work, certain features that HFS+ can offer are not possible on ZFS yet.
Certain tools are relying on very specific HFS+ mechanics and workings (Time machine for example) which would complicate work to replicate that on ZFS.While I was looking forward to seeing ZFS in Mac OS X, I doubted that it would be anytime soon, especially since it is a large undertaking making sure that the various parts of the system are all tuned for ZFS, this includes the way the OS caches, the amount of memory it can use for ZFS arc cache, and things along those lines.
FreeBSD has slowly been working through those exact issues.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278377</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>jlmale0</author>
	<datestamp>1244643180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Resilver disks to expand capacity?  wth?

No, to extend your ZFS pool, you just pop in new disks and extend the pool.  Alas, doing this, you have to add multiple disks at a time in mirrored pairs or raidz sets.  When I first started messing with this, I was really hoping to add disks dynamically to a raidz set, but this is not implemented.  I fully recognize that this would be non-trivial to implement, but still the idea of adding one disk at a time, as you need capacity, is great for soho environments.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Resilver disks to expand capacity ?
wth ? No , to extend your ZFS pool , you just pop in new disks and extend the pool .
Alas , doing this , you have to add multiple disks at a time in mirrored pairs or raidz sets .
When I first started messing with this , I was really hoping to add disks dynamically to a raidz set , but this is not implemented .
I fully recognize that this would be non-trivial to implement , but still the idea of adding one disk at a time , as you need capacity , is great for soho environments .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Resilver disks to expand capacity?
wth?

No, to extend your ZFS pool, you just pop in new disks and extend the pool.
Alas, doing this, you have to add multiple disks at a time in mirrored pairs or raidz sets.
When I first started messing with this, I was really hoping to add disks dynamically to a raidz set, but this is not implemented.
I fully recognize that this would be non-trivial to implement, but still the idea of adding one disk at a time, as you need capacity, is great for soho environments.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28292959</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244732160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Well we have it running on over a 100 servers wil no real problems.  I have yet to see any slowness or have we yet lost any data.  Yes we have had hard drives die.  ZFS makes them easier to replace.  We even lost two drives in an array and easily rebuilt it.  Try that with regular RAID.</p><p>Yes over a year ago USB drives did not like to be just pulled out.  They fixed that.  We have USB drives formatted in ZFS they work great.  You can save a snapshot of the drive some where.  If the drive gets corrupted just reload the snapshot.  Actually even with a Mac the "preferred" method of removing a drive is to unmount it.  This is true with any OS.  Just snatching the wire out of any running device is lazy and stupid.</p><p>I work with <strong>huge</strong> file systems and back up systems ZFS is the greatest thing since slice bread.  Hell you can even turn it into an NTFS file share. (Our Windows file servers run Solaris)</p><p>Yes with any new technology it still has a very few kinks to work out still it is ready for prime time.</p><p>If Steve wants to leave it out of OSX that will be a big mistake on Apple's part.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Well we have it running on over a 100 servers wil no real problems .
I have yet to see any slowness or have we yet lost any data .
Yes we have had hard drives die .
ZFS makes them easier to replace .
We even lost two drives in an array and easily rebuilt it .
Try that with regular RAID.Yes over a year ago USB drives did not like to be just pulled out .
They fixed that .
We have USB drives formatted in ZFS they work great .
You can save a snapshot of the drive some where .
If the drive gets corrupted just reload the snapshot .
Actually even with a Mac the " preferred " method of removing a drive is to unmount it .
This is true with any OS .
Just snatching the wire out of any running device is lazy and stupid.I work with huge file systems and back up systems ZFS is the greatest thing since slice bread .
Hell you can even turn it into an NTFS file share .
( Our Windows file servers run Solaris ) Yes with any new technology it still has a very few kinks to work out still it is ready for prime time.If Steve wants to leave it out of OSX that will be a big mistake on Apple 's part .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Well we have it running on over a 100 servers wil no real problems.
I have yet to see any slowness or have we yet lost any data.
Yes we have had hard drives die.
ZFS makes them easier to replace.
We even lost two drives in an array and easily rebuilt it.
Try that with regular RAID.Yes over a year ago USB drives did not like to be just pulled out.
They fixed that.
We have USB drives formatted in ZFS they work great.
You can save a snapshot of the drive some where.
If the drive gets corrupted just reload the snapshot.
Actually even with a Mac the "preferred" method of removing a drive is to unmount it.
This is true with any OS.
Just snatching the wire out of any running device is lazy and stupid.I work with huge file systems and back up systems ZFS is the greatest thing since slice bread.
Hell you can even turn it into an NTFS file share.
(Our Windows file servers run Solaris)Yes with any new technology it still has a very few kinks to work out still it is ready for prime time.If Steve wants to leave it out of OSX that will be a big mistake on Apple's part.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276977</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>CarpetShark</author>
	<datestamp>1244629260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behaves</p></div></blockquote><p>This is a lot like XFS on Linux.  There were some very nice qualities to XFS, but at the end of the day, it wasn't designed for desktops, and would happily hose the entire partition if the underlying hardware didn't have enterprise-grade reliability.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behavesThis is a lot like XFS on Linux .
There were some very nice qualities to XFS , but at the end of the day , it was n't designed for desktops , and would happily hose the entire partition if the underlying hardware did n't have enterprise-grade reliability .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behavesThis is a lot like XFS on Linux.
There were some very nice qualities to XFS, but at the end of the day, it wasn't designed for desktops, and would happily hose the entire partition if the underlying hardware didn't have enterprise-grade reliability.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305</id>
	<title>I see no problem with that</title>
	<author>erroneus</author>
	<datestamp>1244664960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If something isn't "good enough" to make a solid product, then don't include it.  This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was.  The list of features that were pulled is longer than those remaining by my estimation.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If something is n't " good enough " to make a solid product , then do n't include it .
This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was .
The list of features that were pulled is longer than those remaining by my estimation .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If something isn't "good enough" to make a solid product, then don't include it.
This is how Vista got whittled down the way it was.
The list of features that were pulled is longer than those remaining by my estimation.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277635</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244637360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>WTF? This isn't 4chan?</htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF ?
This is n't 4chan ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF?
This isn't 4chan?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277243</id>
	<title>Err , Solaris == Unix</title>
	<author>Viol8</author>
	<datestamp>1244632260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Or at least , its one of the operating systems certified to follow all the unix requirements and hence Sun can use the unix name if they want. In fact many moons ago you'd see "SunOS Unix" at the login prompt.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Or at least , its one of the operating systems certified to follow all the unix requirements and hence Sun can use the unix name if they want .
In fact many moons ago you 'd see " SunOS Unix " at the login prompt .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Or at least , its one of the operating systems certified to follow all the unix requirements and hence Sun can use the unix name if they want.
In fact many moons ago you'd see "SunOS Unix" at the login prompt.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277069</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277289</id>
	<title>Perhaps Apple...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244632860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>...are use ZFS on their web server?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>...are use ZFS on their web server ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>...are use ZFS on their web server?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Omestes</author>
	<datestamp>1244577540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Hmm.. karma whore much?</p><p>I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.</p><p>But hell, lets see if I can do this too:</p><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple\_Inc." title="wikipedia.org">Apple</a> [wikipedia.org]:</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is an American multinational corporation which designs and manufactures consumer electronics and software products. The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, the iPod and the iPhone. Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system, the iTunes media browser, the iLife suite of multimedia and creativity software, the iWork suite of productivity software, and Final Cut Studio, a suite of professional audio and film-industry software products. The company operates more than 250 retail stores in nine countries[2] and an online store where hardware and software products are sold.</p></div><p>Sorry for trolling, have a six pack and a day off.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hmm.. karma whore much ? I 'm sure 99.9 \ % of the people on Slashdot , who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is , and those who do n't are perfectly capable of entering the term " ZFS " into Google.But hell , lets see if I can do this too : Apple [ wikipedia.org ] : Apple Inc. ( NASDAQ : AAPL ) is an American multinational corporation which designs and manufactures consumer electronics and software products .
The company 's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers , the iPod and the iPhone .
Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system , the iTunes media browser , the iLife suite of multimedia and creativity software , the iWork suite of productivity software , and Final Cut Studio , a suite of professional audio and film-industry software products .
The company operates more than 250 retail stores in nine countries [ 2 ] and an online store where hardware and software products are sold.Sorry for trolling , have a six pack and a day off .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Hmm.. karma whore much?I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.But hell, lets see if I can do this too:Apple [wikipedia.org]:Apple Inc. (NASDAQ: AAPL) is an American multinational corporation which designs and manufactures consumer electronics and software products.
The company's best-known hardware products include Macintosh computers, the iPod and the iPhone.
Apple software includes the Mac OS X operating system, the iTunes media browser, the iLife suite of multimedia and creativity software, the iWork suite of productivity software, and Final Cut Studio, a suite of professional audio and film-industry software products.
The company operates more than 250 retail stores in nine countries[2] and an online store where hardware and software products are sold.Sorry for trolling, have a six pack and a day off.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285557</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>MarkRose</author>
	<datestamp>1244629620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Only if it's PINK!!!<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:D</htmltext>
<tokenext>Only if it 's PINK ! ! !
: D</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Only if it's PINK!!!
:D</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277313</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276689</id>
	<title>No longer a trace. ZFS is an unfilesystem...</title>
	<author>Helix666</author>
	<datestamp>1244626140000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It looks like they've completely scrubbed all references out of the site now. ZFS never existed, as far as Apple's site is concerned. And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia. In other news, the chocolate ration was increased today...</p><p>I could go on like this forever... =p</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It looks like they 've completely scrubbed all references out of the site now .
ZFS never existed , as far as Apple 's site is concerned .
And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia .
In other news , the chocolate ration was increased today...I could go on like this forever... = p</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It looks like they've completely scrubbed all references out of the site now.
ZFS never existed, as far as Apple's site is concerned.
And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.
In other news, the chocolate ration was increased today...I could go on like this forever... =p</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278415</id>
	<title>Mod -1: Almost entirely nonsense</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n / t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n / t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n / t</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284755</id>
	<title>When did Apple promise ZFS?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244626320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So, when did Apple promise ZFS?  I don't remember that.<br>I remember some people at Sun shooting off their mouths about how it was going to be the NEW MAC FILESYSTEM, TOMORROW!!!  ALSO, WILL TURN YOUR MINI INTO A CRAY!, but that was never substantiated by Apple.  I remember ZFS being a played-down feature addition as an optional filesystem to Mac OS X Server, but that's it.<br>Unlike most other posters, I won't go on to distract the focus-challenged readers with any pro-/anti- Sun/Mac fanboyism.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So , when did Apple promise ZFS ?
I do n't remember that.I remember some people at Sun shooting off their mouths about how it was going to be the NEW MAC FILESYSTEM , TOMORROW ! ! !
ALSO , WILL TURN YOUR MINI INTO A CRAY ! , but that was never substantiated by Apple .
I remember ZFS being a played-down feature addition as an optional filesystem to Mac OS X Server , but that 's it.Unlike most other posters , I wo n't go on to distract the focus-challenged readers with any pro-/anti- Sun/Mac fanboyism .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So, when did Apple promise ZFS?
I don't remember that.I remember some people at Sun shooting off their mouths about how it was going to be the NEW MAC FILESYSTEM, TOMORROW!!!
ALSO, WILL TURN YOUR MINI INTO A CRAY!, but that was never substantiated by Apple.
I remember ZFS being a played-down feature addition as an optional filesystem to Mac OS X Server, but that's it.Unlike most other posters, I won't go on to distract the focus-challenged readers with any pro-/anti- Sun/Mac fanboyism.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277921</id>
	<title>Snow Leopard *Server*</title>
	<author>R.Mo\_Robert</author>
	<datestamp>1244639940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If you read the linked page (from Google cache), you'll see that this feature was slated for Snow Leopard <em>Server</em>, not the consumer version. I do not recall Apple ever advertising fll ZFS support as a feature for the consumer verison of 10.6, and neither does <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Mac\_OS\_X" title="wikipedia.org">Wikipedia</a> [wikipedia.org].</p><p>(Yes, consumer 10.5 does have read-only support for ZFS from the command-line; I imagine this would be still present in 10.6. In any case, it's not like this project is a secret, as Apple has <a href="http://zfs.macosforge.org/trac/wiki/downloads" title="macosforge.org">released it</a> [macosforge.org] open-source.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you read the linked page ( from Google cache ) , you 'll see that this feature was slated for Snow Leopard Server , not the consumer version .
I do not recall Apple ever advertising fll ZFS support as a feature for the consumer verison of 10.6 , and neither does Wikipedia [ wikipedia.org ] .
( Yes , consumer 10.5 does have read-only support for ZFS from the command-line ; I imagine this would be still present in 10.6 .
In any case , it 's not like this project is a secret , as Apple has released it [ macosforge.org ] open-source .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you read the linked page (from Google cache), you'll see that this feature was slated for Snow Leopard Server, not the consumer version.
I do not recall Apple ever advertising fll ZFS support as a feature for the consumer verison of 10.6, and neither does Wikipedia [wikipedia.org].
(Yes, consumer 10.5 does have read-only support for ZFS from the command-line; I imagine this would be still present in 10.6.
In any case, it's not like this project is a secret, as Apple has released it [macosforge.org] open-source.
)</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284537</id>
	<title>HFS2 - Total speculation</title>
	<author>jriskin</author>
	<datestamp>1244625360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Maybe they will actually innovate and create something new. Personally I would love to see them go down a new path with consumers in mind. I would like to see something like what Drobo does for storage (at least in theory) make RAID seamless to end users. Have options like "Optimize this system for video production - less reliable data", "Optimize this system for general use", "Optimize this system for maximum space" those sorts of things. Then the system would automatically add volumes to the storage pool or allow them to be removed (if possible) in the most optimized fashion (striping, mirroring, etc...).</p><p>Obviously, do basic cleanup while they are in there (performance optimization, larger general limits, etc...).</p><p>Personally, if they dropped ZFS to do this I would be happy and say it was a good call.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Maybe they will actually innovate and create something new .
Personally I would love to see them go down a new path with consumers in mind .
I would like to see something like what Drobo does for storage ( at least in theory ) make RAID seamless to end users .
Have options like " Optimize this system for video production - less reliable data " , " Optimize this system for general use " , " Optimize this system for maximum space " those sorts of things .
Then the system would automatically add volumes to the storage pool or allow them to be removed ( if possible ) in the most optimized fashion ( striping , mirroring , etc... ) .Obviously , do basic cleanup while they are in there ( performance optimization , larger general limits , etc... ) .Personally , if they dropped ZFS to do this I would be happy and say it was a good call .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Maybe they will actually innovate and create something new.
Personally I would love to see them go down a new path with consumers in mind.
I would like to see something like what Drobo does for storage (at least in theory) make RAID seamless to end users.
Have options like "Optimize this system for video production - less reliable data", "Optimize this system for general use", "Optimize this system for maximum space" those sorts of things.
Then the system would automatically add volumes to the storage pool or allow them to be removed (if possible) in the most optimized fashion (striping, mirroring, etc...).Obviously, do basic cleanup while they are in there (performance optimization, larger general limits, etc...).Personally, if they dropped ZFS to do this I would be happy and say it was a good call.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>beelsebob</author>
	<datestamp>1244576640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm fairly confident of what it is, having actually used zfs on OS X.</p><ol> <li>The implementation still has some major bugs -- I managed to get a kernel panic with it just by writing to a raid-z.</li><li>There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behaves, for example, pulling a USB device with a zfs volume on it *must* cause zfs to shit its pants, because it's guarenteeing that writes to it will work.</li></ol></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm fairly confident of what it is , having actually used zfs on OS X. The implementation still has some major bugs -- I managed to get a kernel panic with it just by writing to a raid-z.There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behaves , for example , pulling a USB device with a zfs volume on it * must * cause zfs to shit its pants , because it 's guarenteeing that writes to it will work .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm fairly confident of what it is, having actually used zfs on OS X. The implementation still has some major bugs -- I managed to get a kernel panic with it just by writing to a raid-z.There are some unresolved issues just with the way zfs behaves, for example, pulling a USB device with a zfs volume on it *must* cause zfs to shit its pants, because it's guarenteeing that writes to it will work.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277909</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>uglyduckling</author>
	<datestamp>1244639880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I've been struggling, really, to read, your sentences, with that many commas.</p><p>Sorry, sounds a bit harsh and trollish but someone had to say it and might just save you driving someone mad in the future<nobr> <wbr></nobr>;-).</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 've been struggling , really , to read , your sentences , with that many commas.Sorry , sounds a bit harsh and trollish but someone had to say it and might just save you driving someone mad in the future ; - ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I've been struggling, really, to read, your sentences, with that many commas.Sorry, sounds a bit harsh and trollish but someone had to say it and might just save you driving someone mad in the future ;-).</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275993</id>
	<title>fp</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>n/t</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>n/t</tokentext>
<sentencetext>n/t</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28339199</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1245097680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>"Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.</p></div><p>Bull***t. 9/10 times i've pulled a disk (faulty or healthy) out of a raidz, the system has crashed.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z , placing a new one in , and letting it resilver , then pull the next one , until you have pulled all of them , after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide , so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them ( so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger ) give you the extra space.Bull * * * t. 9/10 times i 've pulled a disk ( faulty or healthy ) out of a raidz , the system has crashed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"Replacing and upgrading disk capacity is as simple as pulling one drive from the RAID Z, placing a new one in, and letting it resilver, then pull the next one, until you have pulled all of them, after which you will get the full space the new disks can provide, so going from 1 TB drives to 1.5 TB drives will at the end of replacing all of them (so that they are now all 1.5 TB or bigger) give you the extra space.Bull***t. 9/10 times i've pulled a disk (faulty or healthy) out of a raidz, the system has crashed.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277069</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>speedtux</author>
	<datestamp>1244630220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.</i></p><p>Well, there is always software that promises a lot and crumbles under its own weight, and then there is software that promises little and delivers a bit more.  Windows and Solaris fall into the first category, UNIX and Linux into the second.  Worse really is better.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Which is a shame , since if it did , ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.Well , there is always software that promises a lot and crumbles under its own weight , and then there is software that promises little and delivers a bit more .
Windows and Solaris fall into the first category , UNIX and Linux into the second .
Worse really is better .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Which is a shame, since if it did, ZFS would be last file system mankind would have ever needed.Well, there is always software that promises a lot and crumbles under its own weight, and then there is software that promises little and delivers a bit more.
Windows and Solaris fall into the first category, UNIX and Linux into the second.
Worse really is better.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278399</id>
	<title>HAMMER? BTRFS?</title>
	<author>chrysalis</author>
	<datestamp>1244643360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wouldn't be surprized if Apple dropped ZFS for BTRFS or DragonflyBSD's HAMMER, just because their license is better, because their performance don't degrade much over time and because Oracle has nothing to do with them.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I would n't be surprized if Apple dropped ZFS for BTRFS or DragonflyBSD 's HAMMER , just because their license is better , because their performance do n't degrade much over time and because Oracle has nothing to do with them .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wouldn't be surprized if Apple dropped ZFS for BTRFS or DragonflyBSD's HAMMER, just because their license is better, because their performance don't degrade much over time and because Oracle has nothing to do with them.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276269</id>
	<title>ZFS?  What ZFS?</title>
	<author>commodoresloat</author>
	<datestamp>1244664540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>There never was a ZFS.  And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>There never was a ZFS .
And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>There never was a ZFS.
And Oceania was always at war with Eurasia.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278501</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1244643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Being "off in the corner" with capabilities far beyond what anyone else offers doesn't sound like such a shameful place to me. If people won't educate themselves about what Solaris &amp; ZFS offer, then their loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Being " off in the corner " with capabilities far beyond what anyone else offers does n't sound like such a shameful place to me .
If people wo n't educate themselves about what Solaris &amp; ZFS offer , then their loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Being "off in the corner" with capabilities far beyond what anyone else offers doesn't sound like such a shameful place to me.
If people won't educate themselves about what Solaris &amp; ZFS offer, then their loss.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278217</id>
	<title>Mac Status</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244642280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><tt>[ ] Not told<br>[ ] Pending<br>[X] TOLD</tt></p></htmltext>
<tokenext>[ ] Not told [ ] Pending [ X ] TOLD</tokentext>
<sentencetext>[ ] Not told[ ] Pending[X] TOLD</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282597</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1244660640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate. Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it. </i></p><p>MS don't need to.  <a href="http://www.fs-driver.org/" title="fs-driver.org">Ext2 Installable File System For Windows</a> [fs-driver.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why , it 's almost as if Microsoft do n't want to inter-operate .
Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code , yet MS do n't implement it .
MS do n't need to .
Ext2 Installable File System For Windows [ fs-driver.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why, it's almost as if Microsoft don't want to inter-operate.
Ext3 is fully documented with viewable code, yet MS don't implement it.
MS don't need to.
Ext2 Installable File System For Windows [fs-driver.org]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277667</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Bandman</author>
	<datestamp>1244637660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If wishes were horses , we 'd all be eating steak .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If wishes were horses, we'd all be eating steak.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277133</id>
	<title>rebranding?</title>
	<author>dirtyhippie</author>
	<datestamp>1244631000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Is it not possible that apple is getting ready to rebrand ZFS as iFiles or something?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Is it not possible that apple is getting ready to rebrand ZFS as iFiles or something ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Is it not possible that apple is getting ready to rebrand ZFS as iFiles or something?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276103</id>
	<title>Re:Perhaps it will BE ZFS just not BE CALLED ZFS</title>
	<author>BrokenHalo</author>
	<datestamp>1244576280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><i>either re-branded or forked by Apple </i> <br> <br>Well, I hope they work something out. I've been looking for a good cross-platform filesystem to work between my Mac and Linux boxes; at the moment I'm using HFS+ but am not entirely happy with the way it u/mounts on Linux after having been written by OS X. I've seen suggestions to use NTFS, but that doesn't do proper *nix permissions.</htmltext>
<tokenext>either re-branded or forked by Apple Well , I hope they work something out .
I 've been looking for a good cross-platform filesystem to work between my Mac and Linux boxes ; at the moment I 'm using HFS + but am not entirely happy with the way it u/mounts on Linux after having been written by OS X. I 've seen suggestions to use NTFS , but that does n't do proper * nix permissions .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>either re-branded or forked by Apple   Well, I hope they work something out.
I've been looking for a good cross-platform filesystem to work between my Mac and Linux boxes; at the moment I'm using HFS+ but am not entirely happy with the way it u/mounts on Linux after having been written by OS X. I've seen suggestions to use NTFS, but that doesn't do proper *nix permissions.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282877</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Firehawke</author>
	<datestamp>1244661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>At least for USB drives, it looks like the successor will be exFAT (or call it FAT64 since that essentially IS what it is.)</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>At least for USB drives , it looks like the successor will be exFAT ( or call it FAT64 since that essentially IS what it is .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At least for USB drives, it looks like the successor will be exFAT (or call it FAT64 since that essentially IS what it is.
)</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276303</id>
	<title>Where does Slashdot get it's information?</title>
	<author>Suiggy</author>
	<datestamp>1244664960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Guys, ZFS is currently in the Snow Leopard Server preview, it's just not in the main desktop version of Snow Leopard yet (it'll probably come in a few months). Not only that, but there are HFS+ and ZFS drivers for bootcamp. My friend just installed Windows 7 RC on a ZFS partition with Bootcamp on Snow Leopard Server.

The following screenshot is SFW <a href="http://i40.tinypic.com/xdumw0.jpg" title="tinypic.com" rel="nofollow">http://i40.tinypic.com/xdumw0.jpg</a> [tinypic.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Guys , ZFS is currently in the Snow Leopard Server preview , it 's just not in the main desktop version of Snow Leopard yet ( it 'll probably come in a few months ) .
Not only that , but there are HFS + and ZFS drivers for bootcamp .
My friend just installed Windows 7 RC on a ZFS partition with Bootcamp on Snow Leopard Server .
The following screenshot is SFW http : //i40.tinypic.com/xdumw0.jpg [ tinypic.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Guys, ZFS is currently in the Snow Leopard Server preview, it's just not in the main desktop version of Snow Leopard yet (it'll probably come in a few months).
Not only that, but there are HFS+ and ZFS drivers for bootcamp.
My friend just installed Windows 7 RC on a ZFS partition with Bootcamp on Snow Leopard Server.
The following screenshot is SFW http://i40.tinypic.com/xdumw0.jpg [tinypic.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280441</id>
	<title>karma whores vs. stats manglers</title>
	<author>Gary W. Longsine</author>
	<datestamp>1244652300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p> <em>"I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google."</em></p></div> </blockquote><p>
Uhm... did you *read* this discussion?  I'd say it's more like 50\%.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" I 'm sure 99.9 \ % of the people on Slashdot , who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is , and those who do n't are perfectly capable of entering the term " ZFS " into Google .
" Uhm... did you * read * this discussion ?
I 'd say it 's more like 50 \ % .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> "I'm sure 99.9\% of the people on Slashdot, who care enough to open the discussion know what ZFS is, and those who don't are perfectly capable of entering the term "ZFS" into Google.
" 
Uhm... did you *read* this discussion?
I'd say it's more like 50\%.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377</id>
	<title>KILL HFS+ WITH FIRE</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244633940000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>OK, when they updated UFS in Panther I was all ^\_^ because I was tired of HFS+ turning up x\_x, and then they decided to make Spotlight dependent on HFS+ and I was all o\_O and half the guys on Slashdot were telling me that UFS was -\_+ and ZFS was coming and they were all<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:) over that, well guys, what kind of emoticon are you mainlining now?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>OK , when they updated UFS in Panther I was all ^ \ _ ^ because I was tired of HFS + turning up x \ _x , and then they decided to make Spotlight dependent on HFS + and I was all o \ _O and half the guys on Slashdot were telling me that UFS was - \ _ + and ZFS was coming and they were all : ) over that , well guys , what kind of emoticon are you mainlining now ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>OK, when they updated UFS in Panther I was all ^\_^ because I was tired of HFS+ turning up x\_x, and then they decided to make Spotlight dependent on HFS+ and I was all o\_O and half the guys on Slashdot were telling me that UFS was -\_+ and ZFS was coming and they were all :) over that, well guys, what kind of emoticon are you mainlining now?</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097</id>
	<title>One less "feature"</title>
	<author>Lank</author>
	<datestamp>1244576160000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>With most of the emphasis on performance and stability, this was probably the one "feature" I was looking forward to with Snow Leopard.  At $29 I'll still upgrade.  Grand Central and OpenCL sound fairly impressive but I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded...  I guess I'll keep on waiting.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>With most of the emphasis on performance and stability , this was probably the one " feature " I was looking forward to with Snow Leopard .
At $ 29 I 'll still upgrade .
Grand Central and OpenCL sound fairly impressive but I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded... I guess I 'll keep on waiting .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>With most of the emphasis on performance and stability, this was probably the one "feature" I was looking forward to with Snow Leopard.
At $29 I'll still upgrade.
Grand Central and OpenCL sound fairly impressive but I was really looking forward to a file system that never needed to be upgraded...  I guess I'll keep on waiting.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281803</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>TheSpoom</author>
	<datestamp>1244657520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comment" title="wikipedia.org">Comment</a> [wikipedia.org] </p><p><div class="quote"><p>A comment is generally a verbal or written remark often related to an added piece of information, or an observation or statement. These are usually marked with an abbreviation, such as "obs." or "N.B.".</p></div><p>(Just in case you don't know what you're reading here.)</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Comment [ wikipedia.org ] A comment is generally a verbal or written remark often related to an added piece of information , or an observation or statement .
These are usually marked with an abbreviation , such as " obs .
" or " N.B. " .
( Just in case you do n't know what you 're reading here .
)</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Comment [wikipedia.org] A comment is generally a verbal or written remark often related to an added piece of information, or an observation or statement.
These are usually marked with an abbreviation, such as "obs.
" or "N.B.".
(Just in case you don't know what you're reading here.
)
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276173</id>
	<title>They're waiting on iProd and iFPGA</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244577180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It made sense to pre-announce ZFS to head off the competition, but now that the cards are all face-up on the table, Apple doesn't want to be seen as overpromising and underdelivering.  Once iFPGA in particular is out the door, nobody will remember this delay, or any of the other political snafus.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It made sense to pre-announce ZFS to head off the competition , but now that the cards are all face-up on the table , Apple does n't want to be seen as overpromising and underdelivering .
Once iFPGA in particular is out the door , nobody will remember this delay , or any of the other political snafus .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It made sense to pre-announce ZFS to head off the competition, but now that the cards are all face-up on the table, Apple doesn't want to be seen as overpromising and underdelivering.
Once iFPGA in particular is out the door, nobody will remember this delay, or any of the other political snafus.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278515</id>
	<title>Re:For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>WTF is a "website"?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>WTF is a " website " ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>WTF is a "website"?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278471</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244643780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>True, but the Linux camp, too, is guilty of childish taking-their-ball-and-going-home type of behavior. It's common among the sanctimonious...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>True , but the Linux camp , too , is guilty of childish taking-their-ball-and-going-home type of behavior .
It 's common among the sanctimonious.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>True, but the Linux camp, too, is guilty of childish taking-their-ball-and-going-home type of behavior.
It's common among the sanctimonious...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275991</id>
	<title>Well fuck it, we're going to 128 bits</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244575080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>cross-meme joke completed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>cross-meme joke completed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>cross-meme joke completed.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279229</id>
	<title>ZFS is primarily a server file system</title>
	<author>Whatchamacallit</author>
	<datestamp>1244647080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS is primarily a server file system. It's meant to be used with multiple disks.  Now getting it to work with USB and Firewire drives is going to take some extra effort on Apple's part.  HFS+ for Snow Leopard introduces some compression features which is how Apple was able to reclaim 6GB's of disk space on the Snow Leopard install.  Much of that is stripping out non-Intel architectures, and some legacy subsystems/API's but the compression shrinks the OS foot print significantly.</p><p>So unless you are running a Mac Pro with 4 hard disks or an XServe you are not likely to be using ZFS anyway.  ZFS is still a wonderful file system!  It's fantastic on data center SAN's and large disk arrays!  It's got some really nice features.  But for Apple to implement it they need more time to refine it.  As others have said already, many Apple applications have to be changed to take advantage of ZFS, etc.  Sun's client base has professional Solaris sysadmins setting up servers and such.  ZFS was designed to be easy for sysadmins not the average joe user.  Apple needs to refine it and provide automatic behavior and build some easier to use management into Disk Utility for it. Then some monitoring tools, etc.</p><p>If we see it anywhere in the future, ZFS will likely be rolled out on the next big cat OS after Snow Leopard and only on OS X Server at first.  Then likely, the next OS release may incorporate it on the client.  I think they took a look at ZFS long and hard and from a design and engineering perspective put it on the back burner for the next OS cycle after Snow Leopard.  Snow Leopard was about optimizing what they had and refining it and sharpening it getting it ready for the future.  Focus was on 64bit with 32bit compatibility and to clean up the architecture by stripping out legacy stuff.  Apple made a decision to not pursue ZFS at this time, that doesn't mean they won't go back and re-address it at a later date.</p><p>I personally, don't see the average Mac user gaining all that much benefit from ZFS unless they are a sysadmin and working with big storage.  The average user with large storage needs is better off buying a Drobo device http://www.drobo.com/.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS is primarily a server file system .
It 's meant to be used with multiple disks .
Now getting it to work with USB and Firewire drives is going to take some extra effort on Apple 's part .
HFS + for Snow Leopard introduces some compression features which is how Apple was able to reclaim 6GB 's of disk space on the Snow Leopard install .
Much of that is stripping out non-Intel architectures , and some legacy subsystems/API 's but the compression shrinks the OS foot print significantly.So unless you are running a Mac Pro with 4 hard disks or an XServe you are not likely to be using ZFS anyway .
ZFS is still a wonderful file system !
It 's fantastic on data center SAN 's and large disk arrays !
It 's got some really nice features .
But for Apple to implement it they need more time to refine it .
As others have said already , many Apple applications have to be changed to take advantage of ZFS , etc .
Sun 's client base has professional Solaris sysadmins setting up servers and such .
ZFS was designed to be easy for sysadmins not the average joe user .
Apple needs to refine it and provide automatic behavior and build some easier to use management into Disk Utility for it .
Then some monitoring tools , etc.If we see it anywhere in the future , ZFS will likely be rolled out on the next big cat OS after Snow Leopard and only on OS X Server at first .
Then likely , the next OS release may incorporate it on the client .
I think they took a look at ZFS long and hard and from a design and engineering perspective put it on the back burner for the next OS cycle after Snow Leopard .
Snow Leopard was about optimizing what they had and refining it and sharpening it getting it ready for the future .
Focus was on 64bit with 32bit compatibility and to clean up the architecture by stripping out legacy stuff .
Apple made a decision to not pursue ZFS at this time , that does n't mean they wo n't go back and re-address it at a later date.I personally , do n't see the average Mac user gaining all that much benefit from ZFS unless they are a sysadmin and working with big storage .
The average user with large storage needs is better off buying a Drobo device http : //www.drobo.com/ .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS is primarily a server file system.
It's meant to be used with multiple disks.
Now getting it to work with USB and Firewire drives is going to take some extra effort on Apple's part.
HFS+ for Snow Leopard introduces some compression features which is how Apple was able to reclaim 6GB's of disk space on the Snow Leopard install.
Much of that is stripping out non-Intel architectures, and some legacy subsystems/API's but the compression shrinks the OS foot print significantly.So unless you are running a Mac Pro with 4 hard disks or an XServe you are not likely to be using ZFS anyway.
ZFS is still a wonderful file system!
It's fantastic on data center SAN's and large disk arrays!
It's got some really nice features.
But for Apple to implement it they need more time to refine it.
As others have said already, many Apple applications have to be changed to take advantage of ZFS, etc.
Sun's client base has professional Solaris sysadmins setting up servers and such.
ZFS was designed to be easy for sysadmins not the average joe user.
Apple needs to refine it and provide automatic behavior and build some easier to use management into Disk Utility for it.
Then some monitoring tools, etc.If we see it anywhere in the future, ZFS will likely be rolled out on the next big cat OS after Snow Leopard and only on OS X Server at first.
Then likely, the next OS release may incorporate it on the client.
I think they took a look at ZFS long and hard and from a design and engineering perspective put it on the back burner for the next OS cycle after Snow Leopard.
Snow Leopard was about optimizing what they had and refining it and sharpening it getting it ready for the future.
Focus was on 64bit with 32bit compatibility and to clean up the architecture by stripping out legacy stuff.
Apple made a decision to not pursue ZFS at this time, that doesn't mean they won't go back and re-address it at a later date.I personally, don't see the average Mac user gaining all that much benefit from ZFS unless they are a sysadmin and working with big storage.
The average user with large storage needs is better off buying a Drobo device http://www.drobo.com/.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282379</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1244659740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>NTFS. journaling, long filenames, extended attributes, yup. ntfs-3g is on *nix and osx, and seems to be mature enough that one might not describe it as a "precarious hack".</p><p>"ZFS would have been it"<br>well, it doesn't have journaling. but it doesn't need it what with the copy-on-write.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>NTFS .
journaling , long filenames , extended attributes , yup .
ntfs-3g is on * nix and osx , and seems to be mature enough that one might not describe it as a " precarious hack " .
" ZFS would have been it " well , it does n't have journaling .
but it does n't need it what with the copy-on-write .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>NTFS.
journaling, long filenames, extended attributes, yup.
ntfs-3g is on *nix and osx, and seems to be mature enough that one might not describe it as a "precarious hack".
"ZFS would have been it"well, it doesn't have journaling.
but it doesn't need it what with the copy-on-write.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281219</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>mzs</author>
	<datestamp>1244655240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You might take a look at FFS UFS, form me it worked for NetBSD and FreeBSD disks I had to mount under Windows XP and Vista:</p><p><a href="http://ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/" title="sourceforge.net">http://ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/</a> [sourceforge.net]</p><p>Supposedly it works with FFS from basically all the BSDs. The last time I looked UFS on Apple was essentially BSD FFS UFS. The headers look like it may deal deal with an Apple Partition Map as well, so it MIGHT work with that as long as you do not use GUID instead. Solaris UFS has made some changes long ago that make things different sizes than in FFS, so mounting FFS under Solaris is not possible in any way that I know of.</p><p>The other thing is that there are various journaling schemes for FFS and that as well as extended attributes and acls are fairly recent additions. I don't know how much of that ffsdrv nor Apple UFS support.</p><p>So now that I think about, man do I wish FFS would have been the best option, but I guess not. I guess cifs on top of whatever is sadly the best option these days.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You might take a look at FFS UFS , form me it worked for NetBSD and FreeBSD disks I had to mount under Windows XP and Vista : http : //ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/ [ sourceforge.net ] Supposedly it works with FFS from basically all the BSDs .
The last time I looked UFS on Apple was essentially BSD FFS UFS .
The headers look like it may deal deal with an Apple Partition Map as well , so it MIGHT work with that as long as you do not use GUID instead .
Solaris UFS has made some changes long ago that make things different sizes than in FFS , so mounting FFS under Solaris is not possible in any way that I know of.The other thing is that there are various journaling schemes for FFS and that as well as extended attributes and acls are fairly recent additions .
I do n't know how much of that ffsdrv nor Apple UFS support.So now that I think about , man do I wish FFS would have been the best option , but I guess not .
I guess cifs on top of whatever is sadly the best option these days .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You might take a look at FFS UFS, form me it worked for NetBSD and FreeBSD disks I had to mount under Windows XP and Vista:http://ffsdrv.sourceforge.net/ [sourceforge.net]Supposedly it works with FFS from basically all the BSDs.
The last time I looked UFS on Apple was essentially BSD FFS UFS.
The headers look like it may deal deal with an Apple Partition Map as well, so it MIGHT work with that as long as you do not use GUID instead.
Solaris UFS has made some changes long ago that make things different sizes than in FFS, so mounting FFS under Solaris is not possible in any way that I know of.The other thing is that there are various journaling schemes for FFS and that as well as extended attributes and acls are fairly recent additions.
I don't know how much of that ffsdrv nor Apple UFS support.So now that I think about, man do I wish FFS would have been the best option, but I guess not.
I guess cifs on top of whatever is sadly the best option these days.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277141</id>
	<title>Re:Death knell</title>
	<author>ishobo</author>
	<datestamp>1244631120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>We run ZFS on every FreeBSD server and a few desktops. Mostly 64bit. It requires tuning. I have a laptop with 1GB running FreeBSD and ZFS has been rock solid. The instant volume and snapshots creation has me hooked. I could never go back. I wish ZFS existed for Windows.</p><p>ZFS development is not over; it is still being actively maintained.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>We run ZFS on every FreeBSD server and a few desktops .
Mostly 64bit .
It requires tuning .
I have a laptop with 1GB running FreeBSD and ZFS has been rock solid .
The instant volume and snapshots creation has me hooked .
I could never go back .
I wish ZFS existed for Windows.ZFS development is not over ; it is still being actively maintained .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>We run ZFS on every FreeBSD server and a few desktops.
Mostly 64bit.
It requires tuning.
I have a laptop with 1GB running FreeBSD and ZFS has been rock solid.
The instant volume and snapshots creation has me hooked.
I could never go back.
I wish ZFS existed for Windows.ZFS development is not over; it is still being actively maintained.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28287627</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>jwhitener</author>
	<datestamp>1244640960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Early ZFS had some Oracle issues, but I think that all/majority of those are now patched.  We've been running sun ldap, oracle db, tomcat, sun calendar, sun email on zfs in production, with ~24,000 unique visitors a day, and have had zero zfs related problems.</p><p>I'm not sure if your scale is far larger or something, but I see no performance difference between oracle on zfs and oracle on UFS/other.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Early ZFS had some Oracle issues , but I think that all/majority of those are now patched .
We 've been running sun ldap , oracle db , tomcat , sun calendar , sun email on zfs in production , with ~ 24,000 unique visitors a day , and have had zero zfs related problems.I 'm not sure if your scale is far larger or something , but I see no performance difference between oracle on zfs and oracle on UFS/other .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Early ZFS had some Oracle issues, but I think that all/majority of those are now patched.
We've been running sun ldap, oracle db, tomcat, sun calendar, sun email on zfs in production, with ~24,000 unique visitors a day, and have had zero zfs related problems.I'm not sure if your scale is far larger or something, but I see no performance difference between oracle on zfs and oracle on UFS/other.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280287</id>
	<title>Goodwill.</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1244651460000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>They could get some of that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>They could get some of that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>They could get some of that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278009</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281605</id>
	<title>I think this might be a marketing issue...</title>
	<author>rivaldufus</author>
	<datestamp>1244656740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In regard to the ZFS on a USB drive issue, I think it is probably a bad idea to market ZFS as a regular desktop filesystem - at least for now. It seems like it's more of a NAS/SAN (with comstar) replacement and not something to use with your USB drives.</p><p>How many here would be comfortable power cycling EMC Clariions or NetApp boxes arbitrarily? They have redundant power for a reason. </p><p> Personally, I've been burned so many times by people power cycling servers with RAID cards I get very nervous when I have to start working on a system that was hard power cycled. <i>Is one of the disks now corrupt?</i> </p><p>At any rate, you can deal with the USB issue if you're willing to remove the pool with the USB drive, then re-import it when you re-attach it.
</p><p>Again, I'd say this is bad marketing. I'm likely to use FAT32 on small flash devices, but not on server filesystems. I'm willing to live with the issues ZFS has with removing a device from a pool as long as I'm using it on a server. They do claim that this will be resolved at some point. With as many people as Sun has laid off, is anyone surprised this is taking a while? I think it's less an issue of "arrogant engineers" (if any Linux zealots are saying this, they're being pretty hypocritical) and more of an issue of not enough man power.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In regard to the ZFS on a USB drive issue , I think it is probably a bad idea to market ZFS as a regular desktop filesystem - at least for now .
It seems like it 's more of a NAS/SAN ( with comstar ) replacement and not something to use with your USB drives.How many here would be comfortable power cycling EMC Clariions or NetApp boxes arbitrarily ?
They have redundant power for a reason .
Personally , I 've been burned so many times by people power cycling servers with RAID cards I get very nervous when I have to start working on a system that was hard power cycled .
Is one of the disks now corrupt ?
At any rate , you can deal with the USB issue if you 're willing to remove the pool with the USB drive , then re-import it when you re-attach it .
Again , I 'd say this is bad marketing .
I 'm likely to use FAT32 on small flash devices , but not on server filesystems .
I 'm willing to live with the issues ZFS has with removing a device from a pool as long as I 'm using it on a server .
They do claim that this will be resolved at some point .
With as many people as Sun has laid off , is anyone surprised this is taking a while ?
I think it 's less an issue of " arrogant engineers " ( if any Linux zealots are saying this , they 're being pretty hypocritical ) and more of an issue of not enough man power .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In regard to the ZFS on a USB drive issue, I think it is probably a bad idea to market ZFS as a regular desktop filesystem - at least for now.
It seems like it's more of a NAS/SAN (with comstar) replacement and not something to use with your USB drives.How many here would be comfortable power cycling EMC Clariions or NetApp boxes arbitrarily?
They have redundant power for a reason.
Personally, I've been burned so many times by people power cycling servers with RAID cards I get very nervous when I have to start working on a system that was hard power cycled.
Is one of the disks now corrupt?
At any rate, you can deal with the USB issue if you're willing to remove the pool with the USB drive, then re-import it when you re-attach it.
Again, I'd say this is bad marketing.
I'm likely to use FAT32 on small flash devices, but not on server filesystems.
I'm willing to live with the issues ZFS has with removing a device from a pool as long as I'm using it on a server.
They do claim that this will be resolved at some point.
With as many people as Sun has laid off, is anyone surprised this is taking a while?
I think it's less an issue of "arrogant engineers" (if any Linux zealots are saying this, they're being pretty hypocritical) and more of an issue of not enough man power.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282525</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>kindbud</author>
	<datestamp>1244660340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>(let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full). </i></p><p>Same results here.  Oracle + Thumper + ZFS = unusable.  Oracle + Thumper + traditional volume manager = good enough.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>( let 's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full ) .
Same results here .
Oracle + Thumper + ZFS = unusable .
Oracle + Thumper + traditional volume manager = good enough .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>(let's just say that there are certain Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full).
Same results here.
Oracle + Thumper + ZFS = unusable.
Oracle + Thumper + traditional volume manager = good enough.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278363</id>
	<title>I'm disappointed, but I'll get over it</title>
	<author>jocknerd</author>
	<datestamp>1244643120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS doesn't make the cut for 10.6. Disappointing but there must be a reason. For one thing, 10.6 is about speed not features. So maybe ZFS still is in the works for 10.7.  And 10.7 may be out sooner than we think.  Maybe I'll invest in a drobo and give it a shot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS does n't make the cut for 10.6 .
Disappointing but there must be a reason .
For one thing , 10.6 is about speed not features .
So maybe ZFS still is in the works for 10.7 .
And 10.7 may be out sooner than we think .
Maybe I 'll invest in a drobo and give it a shot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS doesn't make the cut for 10.6.
Disappointing but there must be a reason.
For one thing, 10.6 is about speed not features.
So maybe ZFS still is in the works for 10.7.
And 10.7 may be out sooner than we think.
Maybe I'll invest in a drobo and give it a shot.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037</id>
	<title>For those who are wondering:</title>
	<author>wolf12886</author>
	<datestamp>1244575620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">ZFS</a> [wikipedia.org]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS [ wikipedia.org ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS [wikipedia.org]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284749</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>afidel</author>
	<datestamp>1244626260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>UDF should also be worth a try. Vista and current versions of OSX support it read/write and it should support all the features you list no problem.</htmltext>
<tokenext>UDF should also be worth a try .
Vista and current versions of OSX support it read/write and it should support all the features you list no problem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>UDF should also be worth a try.
Vista and current versions of OSX support it read/write and it should support all the features you list no problem.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281179</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS still needs more miles under the belt</title>
	<author>fm6</author>
	<datestamp>1244655060000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to full</p></div><p>I can't speak to the general performance issue. But I seem to recall that <i>any</i> file system performs poorly if there isn't a lot of free space.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to fullI ca n't speak to the general performance issue .
But I seem to recall that any file system performs poorly if there is n't a lot of free space .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Oracle workload profiles for which ZFS causes some massive performance hits especially when the disks are close to fullI can't speak to the general performance issue.
But I seem to recall that any file system performs poorly if there isn't a lot of free space.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276319</id>
	<title>2009:</title>
	<author>s1lverl0rd</author>
	<datestamp>1244665080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The Year of the ZFS Desktop! Oh, wait...</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The Year of the ZFS Desktop !
Oh , wait.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The Year of the ZFS Desktop!
Oh, wait...</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28290009</id>
	<title>Re:I want a universal filesystem</title>
	<author>evilviper</author>
	<datestamp>1244661900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>I want a universal filesystem Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?</p></div></blockquote><p>UFS would be a good candidate, as Linux, BSD, and OS X include support for it, and a couple Windows drivers are available, though I can't comment on their reliability.</p><p>No, UFS doesn't have have journaling, but asking for an unseen technical feature is a bit like asking for a specific model of car...  There's probably some feature you want, but you can't mentally separate the feature from the "journaling" technology you've heard in the same breath...  If you're looking for fault tolerance, or fast recovery without waiting for fsck, that can be done better WITHOUT a journal, as in the case of UFS2 on FreeBSD, and ZFS on FreeBSD and [Open]Solaris.  In fact UFS is easily the most reliable filesystem I've ever dealt with, and features like softdeps and UFS2 are improving the performance beyond any other general purpose filesystems out there now.</p><p>When removable drives are nearing the terabyte marker, exceeding the reasonable limits for FAT32, and NTFS still isn't open to 3rd parties, UFS seems likely to be the only option.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I want a universal filesystem Which one can you mount on Linux , MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks , and with journaling , long filenames , and maybe extended attributes ? UFS would be a good candidate , as Linux , BSD , and OS X include support for it , and a couple Windows drivers are available , though I ca n't comment on their reliability.No , UFS does n't have have journaling , but asking for an unseen technical feature is a bit like asking for a specific model of car... There 's probably some feature you want , but you ca n't mentally separate the feature from the " journaling " technology you 've heard in the same breath... If you 're looking for fault tolerance , or fast recovery without waiting for fsck , that can be done better WITHOUT a journal , as in the case of UFS2 on FreeBSD , and ZFS on FreeBSD and [ Open ] Solaris .
In fact UFS is easily the most reliable filesystem I 've ever dealt with , and features like softdeps and UFS2 are improving the performance beyond any other general purpose filesystems out there now.When removable drives are nearing the terabyte marker , exceeding the reasonable limits for FAT32 , and NTFS still is n't open to 3rd parties , UFS seems likely to be the only option .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I want a universal filesystem Which one can you mount on Linux, MacOS and maybe even Windows without precarious hacks, and with journaling, long filenames, and maybe extended attributes?UFS would be a good candidate, as Linux, BSD, and OS X include support for it, and a couple Windows drivers are available, though I can't comment on their reliability.No, UFS doesn't have have journaling, but asking for an unseen technical feature is a bit like asking for a specific model of car...  There's probably some feature you want, but you can't mentally separate the feature from the "journaling" technology you've heard in the same breath...  If you're looking for fault tolerance, or fast recovery without waiting for fsck, that can be done better WITHOUT a journal, as in the case of UFS2 on FreeBSD, and ZFS on FreeBSD and [Open]Solaris.
In fact UFS is easily the most reliable filesystem I've ever dealt with, and features like softdeps and UFS2 are improving the performance beyond any other general purpose filesystems out there now.When removable drives are nearing the terabyte marker, exceeding the reasonable limits for FAT32, and NTFS still isn't open to 3rd parties, UFS seems likely to be the only option.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279745
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277635
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28287627
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282597
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278009
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281129
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28290009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279257
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285087
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280657
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276191
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277313
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285557
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278531
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28289595
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276585
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28339199
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278415
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277139
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278517
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275991
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277685
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281179
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28368725
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278515
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28316611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277905
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284749
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278501
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276977
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278579
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281219
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282877
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277395
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278471
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277141
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277909
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276691
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281803
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276103
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280839
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28283167
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277945
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277473
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284563
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276287
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280223
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281137
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278377
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278477
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277069
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277243
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280159
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284009
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276183
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280525
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276179
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279645
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_06_09_2336223_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28292959
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276173
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279229
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276109
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277577
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285087
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284749
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278501
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278517
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277905
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280159
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277139
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277127
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278009
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280287
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278471
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279309
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280271
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282597
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282877
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277313
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28285557
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277667
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282379
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28290009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281219
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276037
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276221
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276541
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281803
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277945
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281335
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281129
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277635
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278515
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278477
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276741
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280441
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276019
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276129
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277395
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276977
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28283167
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276103
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276691
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276011
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276625
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278415
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28368725
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279257
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28292959
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28289595
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278579
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278729
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277141
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277909
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279745
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277069
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277243
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278395
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276303
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276097
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284009
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276191
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276299
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284755
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280657
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280839
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275991
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277685
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276305
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28316611
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278531
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281657
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276131
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276217
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280223
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276585
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28277473
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28284563
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28339199
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28278377
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28282525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28287627
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276287
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28280525
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281179
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276183
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_06_09_2336223.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28275995
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28281137
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28276179
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_06_09_2336223.28279645
</commentlist>
</conversation>
