<article>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#article09_10_23_2210246</id>
	<title>Apple Discontinues ZFS Project</title>
	<author>Soulskill</author>
	<datestamp>1256299140000</datestamp>
	<htmltext>Zaurus writes <i>"Apple has replaced its <a href="http://zfs.macosforge.org/">ZFS project page</a> with a notice that 'The ZFS project <a href="http://www.osnews.com/story/22388">has been discontinued</a>. The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly.'  Apple originally touted ZFS as a feature that would be available in Snow Leopard Server.  A few months before release, all mention of ZFS was <a href="http://hardware.slashdot.org/story/09/06/09/2336223/Apple-Removes-Nearly-All-Reference-To-ZFS">removed from the Apple web site and literature</a>, and ZFS was notably absent from Snow Leopard Server at launch.  Despite repeated attempts to get clarification about their plans from ZFS, Apple has not made any official statement regarding the matter.  A <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/zfs-macos">zfs-macos Google group</a> has been set up for members of Apple's zfs-discuss mailing list to migrate to, as many people had started using the unfinished ZFS port already.  The <a href="https://groups.google.com/group/zfs-macos/browse\_thread/thread/bb8b14d78737b649">call is out</a> for developers who can continue the <a href="http://github.com/peaceful/zfs-mac">forked project</a>."</i>
Daring Fireball suggests that Apple's decision could have been <a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs">motivated by NetApp's patent lawsuit over ZFS</a>.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Zaurus writes " Apple has replaced its ZFS project page with a notice that 'The ZFS project has been discontinued .
The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly .
' Apple originally touted ZFS as a feature that would be available in Snow Leopard Server .
A few months before release , all mention of ZFS was removed from the Apple web site and literature , and ZFS was notably absent from Snow Leopard Server at launch .
Despite repeated attempts to get clarification about their plans from ZFS , Apple has not made any official statement regarding the matter .
A zfs-macos Google group has been set up for members of Apple 's zfs-discuss mailing list to migrate to , as many people had started using the unfinished ZFS port already .
The call is out for developers who can continue the forked project .
" Daring Fireball suggests that Apple 's decision could have been motivated by NetApp 's patent lawsuit over ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Zaurus writes "Apple has replaced its ZFS project page with a notice that 'The ZFS project has been discontinued.
The mailing list and repository will also be removed shortly.
'  Apple originally touted ZFS as a feature that would be available in Snow Leopard Server.
A few months before release, all mention of ZFS was removed from the Apple web site and literature, and ZFS was notably absent from Snow Leopard Server at launch.
Despite repeated attempts to get clarification about their plans from ZFS, Apple has not made any official statement regarding the matter.
A zfs-macos Google group has been set up for members of Apple's zfs-discuss mailing list to migrate to, as many people had started using the unfinished ZFS port already.
The call is out for developers who can continue the forked project.
"
Daring Fireball suggests that Apple's decision could have been motivated by NetApp's patent lawsuit over ZFS.</sentencetext>
</article>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29900233</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS is overhyped and not a good fit for desktop</title>
	<author>ggendel</author>
	<datestamp>1256756760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>On most systems that support ZFS, there is already the capability to to encryption via the loop back interface.  They are working on zfs native encryption and it has been under test internal in Sun for awhile.  De-dup capabilities will be available soon.  The development of zfs has been incredibly fast for a file system.  Considering the Mac implementation is at rev 8 and I've got 14 on my OpenSolaris system should say something...  Apple hasn't really put much effort into keeping up with the state-of-the-art of ZFS.</p><p>I've never had corruption issues on ZFS over the several years of heavy use, ups crashes, lightning strikes, etc. During the same time, I've seen several XFS, NTFS, and HFS+ filesystems in adjacent servers get twisted beyond repair.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>On most systems that support ZFS , there is already the capability to to encryption via the loop back interface .
They are working on zfs native encryption and it has been under test internal in Sun for awhile .
De-dup capabilities will be available soon .
The development of zfs has been incredibly fast for a file system .
Considering the Mac implementation is at rev 8 and I 've got 14 on my OpenSolaris system should say something... Apple has n't really put much effort into keeping up with the state-of-the-art of ZFS.I 've never had corruption issues on ZFS over the several years of heavy use , ups crashes , lightning strikes , etc .
During the same time , I 've seen several XFS , NTFS , and HFS + filesystems in adjacent servers get twisted beyond repair .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>On most systems that support ZFS, there is already the capability to to encryption via the loop back interface.
They are working on zfs native encryption and it has been under test internal in Sun for awhile.
De-dup capabilities will be available soon.
The development of zfs has been incredibly fast for a file system.
Considering the Mac implementation is at rev 8 and I've got 14 on my OpenSolaris system should say something...  Apple hasn't really put much effort into keeping up with the state-of-the-art of ZFS.I've never had corruption issues on ZFS over the several years of heavy use, ups crashes, lightning strikes, etc.
During the same time, I've seen several XFS, NTFS, and HFS+ filesystems in adjacent servers get twisted beyond repair.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853389</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>EdIII</author>
	<datestamp>1256306340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>What?</p><p>Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance?  Wear leveling?  Asymmetric I/O speeds?  Poor I/O performance?  Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same, tend to be far lower, and are not consistent.</p><p>In any case I don't see how faster speed is going to make up for anything in a file system.  If you are trying to use them in a server environment it makes no sense either.  SSD's don't perform nearly as well as 4 SATA drives in a decent RAID setup.</p><p>For the cost of 5 large SSD drives you would be better off going with one of the new offerings from FusioIO or OCZ.  At least they have ramped up the write speeds considerably and much closer to the read speed.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance ?
Wear leveling ?
Asymmetric I/O speeds ?
Poor I/O performance ?
Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same , tend to be far lower , and are not consistent.In any case I do n't see how faster speed is going to make up for anything in a file system .
If you are trying to use them in a server environment it makes no sense either .
SSD 's do n't perform nearly as well as 4 SATA drives in a decent RAID setup.For the cost of 5 large SSD drives you would be better off going with one of the new offerings from FusioIO or OCZ .
At least they have ramped up the write speeds considerably and much closer to the read speed .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance?
Wear leveling?
Asymmetric I/O speeds?
Poor I/O performance?
Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same, tend to be far lower, and are not consistent.In any case I don't see how faster speed is going to make up for anything in a file system.
If you are trying to use them in a server environment it makes no sense either.
SSD's don't perform nearly as well as 4 SATA drives in a decent RAID setup.For the cost of 5 large SSD drives you would be better off going with one of the new offerings from FusioIO or OCZ.
At least they have ramped up the write speeds considerably and much closer to the read speed.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861065</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256391180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The problem is, we've seen time and time again the extent that Apple fanboys/astroturfers will go to to suggest Apple is always void of any blame and posting anonymously with the claim of sources is well within the bounds of that.</p><p>If it was some other company, then it may add a little weight, but Apple has so many followers that defy belief when defending Apple such that they'll just time and time again outright lie to protect their reputation then frankly, the claim of having sources adds absolutely nothing whatsoever in this case.</p><p>But then, isn't that just the problem with fanboys, astroturfers and zealots? They lie about so many things it makes it impossible to tell when comments like this really are true, so the only real course of action is to take such a comment with a strong dose of scepticism effectively meaning their bs is entirely self defeating in that those who aren't fellow fanboys have to assume the worst, else face being taken in by outright lies like an idiot.</p><p>That's not to say Apple is the only company that has fanbases guilty of this, it's not like Microsoft or Sony fanboys are much different in this respect. Anyway, the point is it doesn't matter what an AC says they have inside knowledge of, base your view on what they actually say and can provide verifiable evidence for, not what they claim to have evidence for but never actually provide.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The problem is , we 've seen time and time again the extent that Apple fanboys/astroturfers will go to to suggest Apple is always void of any blame and posting anonymously with the claim of sources is well within the bounds of that.If it was some other company , then it may add a little weight , but Apple has so many followers that defy belief when defending Apple such that they 'll just time and time again outright lie to protect their reputation then frankly , the claim of having sources adds absolutely nothing whatsoever in this case.But then , is n't that just the problem with fanboys , astroturfers and zealots ?
They lie about so many things it makes it impossible to tell when comments like this really are true , so the only real course of action is to take such a comment with a strong dose of scepticism effectively meaning their bs is entirely self defeating in that those who are n't fellow fanboys have to assume the worst , else face being taken in by outright lies like an idiot.That 's not to say Apple is the only company that has fanbases guilty of this , it 's not like Microsoft or Sony fanboys are much different in this respect .
Anyway , the point is it does n't matter what an AC says they have inside knowledge of , base your view on what they actually say and can provide verifiable evidence for , not what they claim to have evidence for but never actually provide .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The problem is, we've seen time and time again the extent that Apple fanboys/astroturfers will go to to suggest Apple is always void of any blame and posting anonymously with the claim of sources is well within the bounds of that.If it was some other company, then it may add a little weight, but Apple has so many followers that defy belief when defending Apple such that they'll just time and time again outright lie to protect their reputation then frankly, the claim of having sources adds absolutely nothing whatsoever in this case.But then, isn't that just the problem with fanboys, astroturfers and zealots?
They lie about so many things it makes it impossible to tell when comments like this really are true, so the only real course of action is to take such a comment with a strong dose of scepticism effectively meaning their bs is entirely self defeating in that those who aren't fellow fanboys have to assume the worst, else face being taken in by outright lies like an idiot.That's not to say Apple is the only company that has fanbases guilty of this, it's not like Microsoft or Sony fanboys are much different in this respect.
Anyway, the point is it doesn't matter what an AC says they have inside knowledge of, base your view on what they actually say and can provide verifiable evidence for, not what they claim to have evidence for but never actually provide.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853365</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>saleenS281</author>
	<datestamp>1256306100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why would Apple need different terms?  CDDL and BSD are compatible, hence FreeBSD integrating ZFS.  Furthermore, Apple already integrated DTRACE under the CDDL.  Claiming a licensing issue doesn't make sense... at all.  The only thing that does make sense is that Apple was trying to add a bunch of proprietary code to ZFS and didn't want to release their changes.  Boo hoo.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why would Apple need different terms ?
CDDL and BSD are compatible , hence FreeBSD integrating ZFS .
Furthermore , Apple already integrated DTRACE under the CDDL .
Claiming a licensing issue does n't make sense... at all .
The only thing that does make sense is that Apple was trying to add a bunch of proprietary code to ZFS and did n't want to release their changes .
Boo hoo .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why would Apple need different terms?
CDDL and BSD are compatible, hence FreeBSD integrating ZFS.
Furthermore, Apple already integrated DTRACE under the CDDL.
Claiming a licensing issue doesn't make sense... at all.
The only thing that does make sense is that Apple was trying to add a bunch of proprietary code to ZFS and didn't want to release their changes.
Boo hoo.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861159</id>
	<title>FreeBSD and ZFS</title>
	<author>cracauer</author>
	<datestamp>1256392260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>FreeBSD is about to release 8.0, with ZFS, and ZFS has officially been labeled production-ready:</p><p><a href="http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2009-04-2009-09.html#FreeBSD/ZFS" title="freebsd.org" rel="nofollow">http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2009-04-2009-09.html#FreeBSD/ZFS</a> [freebsd.org]</p><p>Myself, it works good for me on a storage server. There are some edge cases left, for example I could provoke a panic by combining ZFS on a 3-disk array with automatically parking the disks on timeout. Accessing the filesystem with power down disks didn't go so well. This was in 9-current, though.</p><p>ZFS is still the only thing out there providing all of:<br>- snapshots<br>- compression<br>- attributes such as compression can be turned on and off by directory tree<br>- a "filesystem-aware raid", aka something that avoids the RAID hole<br>- and as mentioned optional extra redundancy (more than one disk can die) and the checksumming. That means, for example, you can have your filesystem like raid-5 but some directories as redundant as raid-6</p><p>Until Linux gets BTRFS (and I'm not sure how complete it is with regards to all those features) it's the best thing for a storage server out there.</p><p>\%\%</p><p>Apple's diversion either means they do their own thing (ZFS seems excessively hard to integrate) or is based on patent concerns, or the former because of the latter.</p><p>But if you look at the core of it, NetApp tries to claim patents on everything that does filesystem-integrated snapshots (as opposed to the lame LVM raw device layer snapshots in Linux).  Reimplementing a filesystem with snapshots, whether you call it ZFS or not, won't help here.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>FreeBSD is about to release 8.0 , with ZFS , and ZFS has officially been labeled production-ready : http : //www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2009-04-2009-09.html # FreeBSD/ZFS [ freebsd.org ] Myself , it works good for me on a storage server .
There are some edge cases left , for example I could provoke a panic by combining ZFS on a 3-disk array with automatically parking the disks on timeout .
Accessing the filesystem with power down disks did n't go so well .
This was in 9-current , though.ZFS is still the only thing out there providing all of : - snapshots- compression- attributes such as compression can be turned on and off by directory tree- a " filesystem-aware raid " , aka something that avoids the RAID hole- and as mentioned optional extra redundancy ( more than one disk can die ) and the checksumming .
That means , for example , you can have your filesystem like raid-5 but some directories as redundant as raid-6Until Linux gets BTRFS ( and I 'm not sure how complete it is with regards to all those features ) it 's the best thing for a storage server out there. \ % \ % Apple 's diversion either means they do their own thing ( ZFS seems excessively hard to integrate ) or is based on patent concerns , or the former because of the latter.But if you look at the core of it , NetApp tries to claim patents on everything that does filesystem-integrated snapshots ( as opposed to the lame LVM raw device layer snapshots in Linux ) .
Reimplementing a filesystem with snapshots , whether you call it ZFS or not , wo n't help here .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>FreeBSD is about to release 8.0, with ZFS, and ZFS has officially been labeled production-ready:http://www.freebsd.org/news/status/report-2009-04-2009-09.html#FreeBSD/ZFS [freebsd.org]Myself, it works good for me on a storage server.
There are some edge cases left, for example I could provoke a panic by combining ZFS on a 3-disk array with automatically parking the disks on timeout.
Accessing the filesystem with power down disks didn't go so well.
This was in 9-current, though.ZFS is still the only thing out there providing all of:- snapshots- compression- attributes such as compression can be turned on and off by directory tree- a "filesystem-aware raid", aka something that avoids the RAID hole- and as mentioned optional extra redundancy (more than one disk can die) and the checksumming.
That means, for example, you can have your filesystem like raid-5 but some directories as redundant as raid-6Until Linux gets BTRFS (and I'm not sure how complete it is with regards to all those features) it's the best thing for a storage server out there.\%\%Apple's diversion either means they do their own thing (ZFS seems excessively hard to integrate) or is based on patent concerns, or the former because of the latter.But if you look at the core of it, NetApp tries to claim patents on everything that does filesystem-integrated snapshots (as opposed to the lame LVM raw device layer snapshots in Linux).
Reimplementing a filesystem with snapshots, whether you call it ZFS or not, won't help here.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854421</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>jone1941</author>
	<datestamp>1256321400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sorry, perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but what is the benefit of a "ubiquitous file system" that is largely targeted for server infrastructures.  Generally speaking I agree that parallel efforts to accomplish a similar / identical task can be deemed wasted efforts on some level.  However, that trend is pretty much the standard for all open source projects?  Linux vs BSD,  WebKit vs Gecko, mysql vs postgres, php/perl/python/ruby the list goes on and on.  There are a multitude of reasons projects (corporate backed or otherwise) choose to go their own way.  In some cases I'm sure there are benefits to universalizing implementations of certain technologies (perhaps huge projects like gcc), but specifically server grade file systems?  I just don't see what the big deal is.  Yes ZFS has a large feature list, but clearly if there are patent concerns it's probably for the best that it didn't end up in the Linux kernel (or in OS X).</p><p>When I hear that people are working btrfs I don't think "Oh no, this will only lead to server file system adoption fragmentation".  Instead I think "that sounds like an interesting project for someone, I'll be sure to track it's progress and I look forward to seeing the benefit of it someday".  When I heard that ZFS was not going to be merged into the linux kernel I wasn't particularly concerned.  I'm sure that it provided useful features, but I'm also sure that there are a lot of intelligent people working on linux who could come up with something similarly useful if they felt it was worth while.  Like I said, it's entirely possible that I'm missing the boat here, please feel free to correct me.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sorry , perhaps I 'm just a bit dense , but what is the benefit of a " ubiquitous file system " that is largely targeted for server infrastructures .
Generally speaking I agree that parallel efforts to accomplish a similar / identical task can be deemed wasted efforts on some level .
However , that trend is pretty much the standard for all open source projects ?
Linux vs BSD , WebKit vs Gecko , mysql vs postgres , php/perl/python/ruby the list goes on and on .
There are a multitude of reasons projects ( corporate backed or otherwise ) choose to go their own way .
In some cases I 'm sure there are benefits to universalizing implementations of certain technologies ( perhaps huge projects like gcc ) , but specifically server grade file systems ?
I just do n't see what the big deal is .
Yes ZFS has a large feature list , but clearly if there are patent concerns it 's probably for the best that it did n't end up in the Linux kernel ( or in OS X ) .When I hear that people are working btrfs I do n't think " Oh no , this will only lead to server file system adoption fragmentation " .
Instead I think " that sounds like an interesting project for someone , I 'll be sure to track it 's progress and I look forward to seeing the benefit of it someday " .
When I heard that ZFS was not going to be merged into the linux kernel I was n't particularly concerned .
I 'm sure that it provided useful features , but I 'm also sure that there are a lot of intelligent people working on linux who could come up with something similarly useful if they felt it was worth while .
Like I said , it 's entirely possible that I 'm missing the boat here , please feel free to correct me .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sorry, perhaps I'm just a bit dense, but what is the benefit of a "ubiquitous file system" that is largely targeted for server infrastructures.
Generally speaking I agree that parallel efforts to accomplish a similar / identical task can be deemed wasted efforts on some level.
However, that trend is pretty much the standard for all open source projects?
Linux vs BSD,  WebKit vs Gecko, mysql vs postgres, php/perl/python/ruby the list goes on and on.
There are a multitude of reasons projects (corporate backed or otherwise) choose to go their own way.
In some cases I'm sure there are benefits to universalizing implementations of certain technologies (perhaps huge projects like gcc), but specifically server grade file systems?
I just don't see what the big deal is.
Yes ZFS has a large feature list, but clearly if there are patent concerns it's probably for the best that it didn't end up in the Linux kernel (or in OS X).When I hear that people are working btrfs I don't think "Oh no, this will only lead to server file system adoption fragmentation".
Instead I think "that sounds like an interesting project for someone, I'll be sure to track it's progress and I look forward to seeing the benefit of it someday".
When I heard that ZFS was not going to be merged into the linux kernel I wasn't particularly concerned.
I'm sure that it provided useful features, but I'm also sure that there are a lot of intelligent people working on linux who could come up with something similarly useful if they felt it was worth while.
Like I said, it's entirely possible that I'm missing the boat here, please feel free to correct me.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858413</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>zdzichu</author>
	<datestamp>1256412720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Uhm, are you feeling OK? Btrfs is in Linux kernel, it is constantly being<nobr> <wbr></nobr>,,released'' --  repositiories are wide open for everyone at <a href="http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git;a=summary" title="kernel.org">http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git;a=summary</a> [kernel.org] . Look into the mailinglist, contributions are comming from many companies (Red Hat included). Sun aquisition have exactly zero effect on btrfs development.</p><p>That said, as a ZFS fan, I'm dissapointed by Apple's move. Support in  another high-profile operating system would be good for ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Uhm , are you feeling OK ?
Btrfs is in Linux kernel , it is constantly being ,,released' ' -- repositiories are wide open for everyone at http : //git.kernel.org/ ? p = linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git ; a = summary [ kernel.org ] .
Look into the mailinglist , contributions are comming from many companies ( Red Hat included ) .
Sun aquisition have exactly zero effect on btrfs development.That said , as a ZFS fan , I 'm dissapointed by Apple 's move .
Support in another high-profile operating system would be good for ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Uhm, are you feeling OK?
Btrfs is in Linux kernel, it is constantly being ,,released'' --  repositiories are wide open for everyone at http://git.kernel.org/?p=linux/kernel/git/mason/btrfs-unstable.git;a=summary [kernel.org] .
Look into the mailinglist, contributions are comming from many companies (Red Hat included).
Sun aquisition have exactly zero effect on btrfs development.That said, as a ZFS fan, I'm dissapointed by Apple's move.
Support in  another high-profile operating system would be good for ZFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858743</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256415300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dude, ZFS sucks rocks. Even most dyed-in-the-wool Solaris shops won't touch it with a ten foot pole. Apple dodged themselves a bullet. And I say that as someone who's an admin with nearly 20 years experience at a shop with over 1500 Sun servers.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dude , ZFS sucks rocks .
Even most dyed-in-the-wool Solaris shops wo n't touch it with a ten foot pole .
Apple dodged themselves a bullet .
And I say that as someone who 's an admin with nearly 20 years experience at a shop with over 1500 Sun servers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dude, ZFS sucks rocks.
Even most dyed-in-the-wool Solaris shops won't touch it with a ten foot pole.
Apple dodged themselves a bullet.
And I say that as someone who's an admin with nearly 20 years experience at a shop with over 1500 Sun servers.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855741</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256390640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I see you heard of DragonflyBSD. But you obviously never bothered to even look at their website.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I see you heard of DragonflyBSD .
But you obviously never bothered to even look at their website .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I see you heard of DragonflyBSD.
But you obviously never bothered to even look at their website.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853599</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>pseudonomous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Actually, one of the purported benifits of ZFS is that it's supposed to be able to increase performance on systems that have a combination of SSD and spinning platter disks by caching files on the SSD.  I don't know what it buys you in practice, but it's one of Sun's big selling points of the filesystem, in fact they were building some servers specifically to take advantage of SSD + spinning platter "hybrid storage".</htmltext>
<tokenext>Actually , one of the purported benifits of ZFS is that it 's supposed to be able to increase performance on systems that have a combination of SSD and spinning platter disks by caching files on the SSD .
I do n't know what it buys you in practice , but it 's one of Sun 's big selling points of the filesystem , in fact they were building some servers specifically to take advantage of SSD + spinning platter " hybrid storage " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Actually, one of the purported benifits of ZFS is that it's supposed to be able to increase performance on systems that have a combination of SSD and spinning platter disks by caching files on the SSD.
I don't know what it buys you in practice, but it's one of Sun's big selling points of the filesystem, in fact they were building some servers specifically to take advantage of SSD + spinning platter "hybrid storage".</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854113</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>Mad Merlin</author>
	<datestamp>1256317200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>What?</p><p>Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance?  Wear leveling?  Asymmetric I/O speeds?  Poor I/O performance?  Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same, tend to be far lower, and are not consistent.</p></div><p>I'm sorry, but your comments make no sense with regards to SLC SSDs. Their random read/write speeds are more than an order of magnitude faster than even 15k RPM spinning rust. Not to mention their sequential read/write speeds, which are typically 2-3x faster.</p><p>MLC SSDs are what you're referring to, and they're junk, no question about it. But please, read up on SLC vs MLC before speaking up again.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>What ? Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance ?
Wear leveling ?
Asymmetric I/O speeds ?
Poor I/O performance ?
Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same , tend to be far lower , and are not consistent.I 'm sorry , but your comments make no sense with regards to SLC SSDs .
Their random read/write speeds are more than an order of magnitude faster than even 15k RPM spinning rust .
Not to mention their sequential read/write speeds , which are typically 2-3x faster.MLC SSDs are what you 're referring to , and they 're junk , no question about it .
But please , read up on SLC vs MLC before speaking up again .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>What?Ignoring the high cost and low amount of space what about write endurance?
Wear leveling?
Asymmetric I/O speeds?
Poor I/O performance?
Everybody talks about the super fast read speeds while ignoring the fact that write speeds are never the same, tend to be far lower, and are not consistent.I'm sorry, but your comments make no sense with regards to SLC SSDs.
Their random read/write speeds are more than an order of magnitude faster than even 15k RPM spinning rust.
Not to mention their sequential read/write speeds, which are typically 2-3x faster.MLC SSDs are what you're referring to, and they're junk, no question about it.
But please, read up on SLC vs MLC before speaking up again.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853389</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS is</p></div><p>It is a filesystem, available in (Open)Solaris and at least FreeBSD, possibly other BSDs as well. It has some interesting features, which <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS" title="wikipedia.org">you can check out here</a> [wikipedia.org]. I have heard it claimed that ZFS has good performance, but I have not evaluated any of those claims.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS isIt is a filesystem , available in ( Open ) Solaris and at least FreeBSD , possibly other BSDs as well .
It has some interesting features , which you can check out here [ wikipedia.org ] .
I have heard it claimed that ZFS has good performance , but I have not evaluated any of those claims .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS isIt is a filesystem, available in (Open)Solaris and at least FreeBSD, possibly other BSDs as well.
It has some interesting features, which you can check out here [wikipedia.org].
I have heard it claimed that ZFS has good performance, but I have not evaluated any of those claims.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853611</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>ThePhilips</author>
	<datestamp>1256308980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><nobr> <wbr></nobr>... it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...</p> </div><p> After reading an opinion piece of one of the ZFS authors about Btrfs, I stopped thinking that ZFS deserves to have the momentum.

</p><p> Can't find the link, but ZFS (as first Sun's take on files system) has made several design mistakes which cannot be fixed without redesign. Developed later Btrfs learned on that and avoided the mistakes.

</p><p> IOW, ZFS might have had a very short momentum, but thanks to the licensing + general insanity of Sun management (which managed in past decade to lose all talented people) I'd say in long term it never had a chance to become ubiquitous to begin with.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>... it 'll fragment the momentum ZFS had ... After reading an opinion piece of one of the ZFS authors about Btrfs , I stopped thinking that ZFS deserves to have the momentum .
Ca n't find the link , but ZFS ( as first Sun 's take on files system ) has made several design mistakes which can not be fixed without redesign .
Developed later Btrfs learned on that and avoided the mistakes .
IOW , ZFS might have had a very short momentum , but thanks to the licensing + general insanity of Sun management ( which managed in past decade to lose all talented people ) I 'd say in long term it never had a chance to become ubiquitous to begin with .</tokentext>
<sentencetext> ... it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had ...  After reading an opinion piece of one of the ZFS authors about Btrfs, I stopped thinking that ZFS deserves to have the momentum.
Can't find the link, but ZFS (as first Sun's take on files system) has made several design mistakes which cannot be fixed without redesign.
Developed later Btrfs learned on that and avoided the mistakes.
IOW, ZFS might have had a very short momentum, but thanks to the licensing + general insanity of Sun management (which managed in past decade to lose all talented people) I'd say in long term it never had a chance to become ubiquitous to begin with.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256307900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm sure it will, but I'm afraid that doesn't mean that made it practical for Apple to integrate into OS X or that it fitted the use cases they needed for many desktop scenarios. The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.</p><blockquote><div><p>I use it on servers daily at work, and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home. Bit rot is a very real problem. ZFS handles it automagically.</p></div></blockquote><p>
The ZFS advocates trot those lines out every time and they're total nonsense. Ultimately, the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data - which ZFS has and deals with. No desktop Mac can ever have that. Anyone who thinks that is anywhere near being practical to deal with on a desktop system is an idiot, and no, I'm afraid booting OpenSolaris with ZFS on your desktop system at home and not having it crash and burn does not even approach the kind of issues and corner cases that Apple's engineers will have to deal with, especially in a desktop system like OS X.<br> <br>

By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically'. There is a severe price to be paid. If you don't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption.</p><blockquote><div><p>What handles failure at the data level? Nothing. Hope you make backups of your arrays.</p></div></blockquote><p>
I'm afraid that hardware, bad sector and disk issues are far, far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level. Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line. It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware (hello Solaris!) but I'm afraid it's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to .
I 'm sure it will , but I 'm afraid that does n't mean that made it practical for Apple to integrate into OS X or that it fitted the use cases they needed for many desktop scenarios .
The FreeBSD people still have n't been able to run and integrate it reliably.I use it on servers daily at work , and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home .
Bit rot is a very real problem .
ZFS handles it automagically .
The ZFS advocates trot those lines out every time and they 're total nonsense .
Ultimately , the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot ' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data - which ZFS has and deals with .
No desktop Mac can ever have that .
Anyone who thinks that is anywhere near being practical to deal with on a desktop system is an idiot , and no , I 'm afraid booting OpenSolaris with ZFS on your desktop system at home and not having it crash and burn does not even approach the kind of issues and corner cases that Apple 's engineers will have to deal with , especially in a desktop system like OS X . By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically' .
There is a severe price to be paid .
If you do n't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption.What handles failure at the data level ?
Nothing. Hope you make backups of your arrays .
I 'm afraid that hardware , bad sector and disk issues are far , far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level .
Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line .
It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware ( hello Solaris !
) but I 'm afraid it 's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to.
I'm sure it will, but I'm afraid that doesn't mean that made it practical for Apple to integrate into OS X or that it fitted the use cases they needed for many desktop scenarios.
The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.I use it on servers daily at work, and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home.
Bit rot is a very real problem.
ZFS handles it automagically.
The ZFS advocates trot those lines out every time and they're total nonsense.
Ultimately, the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data - which ZFS has and deals with.
No desktop Mac can ever have that.
Anyone who thinks that is anywhere near being practical to deal with on a desktop system is an idiot, and no, I'm afraid booting OpenSolaris with ZFS on your desktop system at home and not having it crash and burn does not even approach the kind of issues and corner cases that Apple's engineers will have to deal with, especially in a desktop system like OS X. 

By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically'.
There is a severe price to be paid.
If you don't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption.What handles failure at the data level?
Nothing. Hope you make backups of your arrays.
I'm afraid that hardware, bad sector and disk issues are far, far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level.
Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line.
It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware (hello Solaris!
) but I'm afraid it's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854163</id>
	<title>Likely in the works</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm sure Apple is planning something, OS X's file system is showing its age.  Ars had a very good article about it here: <a href="http://arstechnica.com/hardware/news/2008/03/past-present-future-file-systems.ars" title="arstechnica.com" rel="nofollow">From BFS to ZFS</a> [arstechnica.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm sure Apple is planning something , OS X 's file system is showing its age .
Ars had a very good article about it here : From BFS to ZFS [ arstechnica.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm sure Apple is planning something, OS X's file system is showing its age.
Ars had a very good article about it here: From BFS to ZFS [arstechnica.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853551</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system. </i></p><p>The momentum that has had all their best developers jumping ship since Schwartz got the CEO gig?</p><p>Oracle bought Sun for Java.  I see no indication that Oracle cares about ZFS or any of Sun's other technologies.</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is pretty shitty because it 'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system .
The momentum that has had all their best developers jumping ship since Schwartz got the CEO gig ? Oracle bought Sun for Java .
I see no indication that Oracle cares about ZFS or any of Sun 's other technologies.-jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system.
The momentum that has had all their best developers jumping ship since Schwartz got the CEO gig?Oracle bought Sun for Java.
I see no indication that Oracle cares about ZFS or any of Sun's other technologies.-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854505</id>
	<title>Meh. Fuck Apple anyway</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256322960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You would probably just have to continually purchase the right to use each byte of your information on your hardware with your software and wait for iTunes activation for each byte while your face turns white with proprietary rage.</p><p>Cheap toy phones.<br>Cheap toy computers.<br>Guaranteed meltdown locked out servers.</p><p>Apple is a synonym for overpriced guaranteed failure.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You would probably just have to continually purchase the right to use each byte of your information on your hardware with your software and wait for iTunes activation for each byte while your face turns white with proprietary rage.Cheap toy phones.Cheap toy computers.Guaranteed meltdown locked out servers.Apple is a synonym for overpriced guaranteed failure .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You would probably just have to continually purchase the right to use each byte of your information on your hardware with your software and wait for iTunes activation for each byte while your face turns white with proprietary rage.Cheap toy phones.Cheap toy computers.Guaranteed meltdown locked out servers.Apple is a synonym for overpriced guaranteed failure.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
<em>However, they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they're hiring filesystem engineers.</em> </p><p>
That doesn't make any sense.
</p><p>
It only makes sense to engineer a new filesystem if the other options are inadequate or unusable.
</p><p>
Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.
</p><p>
For them to seek to do that, they must have rejected the effort to integrate ZFS for some technical reason.
</p><p>
The complexity of integrating ZFS pales into comparison to the massive cost of engineering and implementing a new filesystem from the ground up.
</p><p>
Let-alone getting the new filesystem to a level of maturity where you can trust it with your data (safelty)
</p><p>
I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.
</p><p>
More likely, they would add new features to HFS+ or make an incremental update.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>However , they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they 're hiring filesystem engineers .
That does n't make any sense .
It only makes sense to engineer a new filesystem if the other options are inadequate or unusable .
Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive .
For them to seek to do that , they must have rejected the effort to integrate ZFS for some technical reason .
The complexity of integrating ZFS pales into comparison to the massive cost of engineering and implementing a new filesystem from the ground up .
Let-alone getting the new filesystem to a level of maturity where you can trust it with your data ( safelty ) I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim .
More likely , they would add new features to HFS + or make an incremental update .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
However, they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they're hiring filesystem engineers.
That doesn't make any sense.
It only makes sense to engineer a new filesystem if the other options are inadequate or unusable.
Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.
For them to seek to do that, they must have rejected the effort to integrate ZFS for some technical reason.
The complexity of integrating ZFS pales into comparison to the massive cost of engineering and implementing a new filesystem from the ground up.
Let-alone getting the new filesystem to a level of maturity where you can trust it with your data (safelty)

I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.
More likely, they would add new features to HFS+ or make an incremental update.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853897</id>
	<title>ZFS looks grand, but glad they did not do it now</title>
	<author>herojig</author>
	<datestamp>1256313300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>At this point in life, HFS is working fine, and the drobo is quietly humming away. I'm glad snow leopard was relatively painless to upgrade too, and not sure this would have been the case if ZFS had been included in 10.6.</htmltext>
<tokenext>At this point in life , HFS is working fine , and the drobo is quietly humming away .
I 'm glad snow leopard was relatively painless to upgrade too , and not sure this would have been the case if ZFS had been included in 10.6 .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>At this point in life, HFS is working fine, and the drobo is quietly humming away.
I'm glad snow leopard was relatively painless to upgrade too, and not sure this would have been the case if ZFS had been included in 10.6.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Dear AC,</p><p>Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary, than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs?</p><p>Best regards.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear AC,Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary , than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs ? Best regards .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear AC,Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary, than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs?Best regards.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855885</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256392440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a fork of FreeBSD 4.x on which they've spent years refactoring the kernel (and updating the userland, come to that).  The VFS interface has had a lot of refactoring so that they can pull tricks other OSes aren't well suited for.  As such it's now, as I understand it, really quite different from the norm and certainly not shared with the other BSDs.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a fork of FreeBSD 4.x on which they 've spent years refactoring the kernel ( and updating the userland , come to that ) .
The VFS interface has had a lot of refactoring so that they can pull tricks other OSes are n't well suited for .
As such it 's now , as I understand it , really quite different from the norm and certainly not shared with the other BSDs .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a fork of FreeBSD 4.x on which they've spent years refactoring the kernel (and updating the userland, come to that).
The VFS interface has had a lot of refactoring so that they can pull tricks other OSes aren't well suited for.
As such it's now, as I understand it, really quite different from the norm and certainly not shared with the other BSDs.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309</id>
	<title>This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard  is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS.
</p><p>
It is an understatement to say i'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this.
</p><p>
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox, it's a major component of the OS.
</p><p>
It'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows....
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS .
It is an understatement to say i 'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this .
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox , it 's a major component of the OS .
It 'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows... .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard  is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS.
It is an understatement to say i'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this.
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox, it's a major component of the OS.
It'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows....
</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853229</id>
	<title>Not surprised.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256304720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Apple: Disappointing and pissing off our customers, one step at a time.</p><p>Life without walls..... Get a PC.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple : Disappointing and pissing off our customers , one step at a time.Life without walls..... Get a PC .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple: Disappointing and pissing off our customers, one step at a time.Life without walls..... Get a PC.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866133</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1256499420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.</p></div><p>If this (potentially) verifiable information is accurate,</p></div><p>The bit about the architect of BeFS is verifiable if you believe his <a href="http://www.nobius.org/~dbg/" title="nobius.org">home page</a> [nobius.org] (I do).</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ( who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down ) , and the architect of the BeFS.If this ( potentially ) verifiable information is accurate,The bit about the architect of BeFS is verifiable if you believe his home page [ nobius.org ] ( I do ) .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.If this (potentially) verifiable information is accurate,The bit about the architect of BeFS is verifiable if you believe his home page [nobius.org] (I do).
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853065</id>
	<title>Great</title>
	<author>tjones</author>
	<datestamp>1256302980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Now if you're using zfs on Mac OS, you can't complain if it loses your data.  You already knew it was forked.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Now if you 're using zfs on Mac OS , you ca n't complain if it loses your data .
You already knew it was forked .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Now if you're using zfs on Mac OS, you can't complain if it loses your data.
You already knew it was forked.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856319</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256396340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HAMMER is totally unsuitable for a desktop.  It makes some decisions, like 8MB blocks and the delete semantics, that are great for clusters but would be horrendous on a laptop or desktop.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HAMMER is totally unsuitable for a desktop .
It makes some decisions , like 8MB blocks and the delete semantics , that are great for clusters but would be horrendous on a laptop or desktop .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAMMER is totally unsuitable for a desktop.
It makes some decisions, like 8MB blocks and the delete semantics, that are great for clusters but would be horrendous on a laptop or desktop.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Significant use (desktop systems) + the necessary need for OSes to write a lot to a drive = low life for an SSD, regardless of wear leveling.</p><p>SSDs are only good for low-use computers (netbooks) and as a replacement for storage media like optical media where you do much more reading than writing.</p><p>Until we get a device that doesn't have this issue, SSDs will NOT replace HDs.  Please, PLEASE do not even consider killing plain HDs like this goddamn industry did to CRTs which are vastly superior to LCDs (even the best of which still have lag and motion tearing issues, no matter what people might say).</p><p>If it's not broke, DON'T REPLACE IT.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Significant use ( desktop systems ) + the necessary need for OSes to write a lot to a drive = low life for an SSD , regardless of wear leveling.SSDs are only good for low-use computers ( netbooks ) and as a replacement for storage media like optical media where you do much more reading than writing.Until we get a device that does n't have this issue , SSDs will NOT replace HDs .
Please , PLEASE do not even consider killing plain HDs like this goddamn industry did to CRTs which are vastly superior to LCDs ( even the best of which still have lag and motion tearing issues , no matter what people might say ) .If it 's not broke , DO N'T REPLACE IT .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Significant use (desktop systems) + the necessary need for OSes to write a lot to a drive = low life for an SSD, regardless of wear leveling.SSDs are only good for low-use computers (netbooks) and as a replacement for storage media like optical media where you do much more reading than writing.Until we get a device that doesn't have this issue, SSDs will NOT replace HDs.
Please, PLEASE do not even consider killing plain HDs like this goddamn industry did to CRTs which are vastly superior to LCDs (even the best of which still have lag and motion tearing issues, no matter what people might say).If it's not broke, DON'T REPLACE IT.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861871</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256400420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Louis Gerbarg's written up a <a href="http://devwhy.blogspot.com/2009/10/loss-of-zfs.html" title="blogspot.com" rel="nofollow">summary that gybes with what the AC above said.  Louis is another ex-Apple engineer.  IIRC, he was in the networking group until about two years ago.</a> [blogspot.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Louis Gerbarg 's written up a summary that gybes with what the AC above said .
Louis is another ex-Apple engineer .
IIRC , he was in the networking group until about two years ago .
[ blogspot.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Louis Gerbarg's written up a summary that gybes with what the AC above said.
Louis is another ex-Apple engineer.
IIRC, he was in the networking group until about two years ago.
[blogspot.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853041</id>
	<title>Got a pussy in my panties</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256302860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>She got a pussy in her panties<br>She wore a pussy thong</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>She got a pussy in her pantiesShe wore a pussy thong</tokentext>
<sentencetext>She got a pussy in her pantiesShe wore a pussy thong</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855441</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>jipn4</author>
	<datestamp>1256386500000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance, manageability, and data protection</i></p><p>That's the theory.  You can even concoct benchmarks.  But there's not a shred of evidence that in real world scenarios it actually does this.</p><p>Do you get paid by Sun for doing their marketing?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance , manageability , and data protectionThat 's the theory .
You can even concoct benchmarks .
But there 's not a shred of evidence that in real world scenarios it actually does this.Do you get paid by Sun for doing their marketing ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance, manageability, and data protectionThat's the theory.
You can even concoct benchmarks.
But there's not a shred of evidence that in real world scenarios it actually does this.Do you get paid by Sun for doing their marketing?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256325300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You realize that DragonflyBSD is just an older FreeBSD with a different installer for all intents and purposes, right?  Not exactly a funny FS interface considering its shared with 4 other OSes, one of which is dead.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You realize that DragonflyBSD is just an older FreeBSD with a different installer for all intents and purposes , right ?
Not exactly a funny FS interface considering its shared with 4 other OSes , one of which is dead .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You realize that DragonflyBSD is just an older FreeBSD with a different installer for all intents and purposes, right?
Not exactly a funny FS interface considering its shared with 4 other OSes, one of which is dead.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856309</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>TheRaven64</author>
	<datestamp>1256396220000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>Why do you need WinFS?  OFS that came with Cairo already did everything you might need...</htmltext>
<tokenext>Why do you need WinFS ?
OFS that came with Cairo already did everything you might need.. .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why do you need WinFS?
OFS that came with Cairo already did everything you might need...</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853647</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854091</id>
	<title>Apple is Dying</title>
	<author>repetty</author>
	<datestamp>1256316600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>None of this matters: Apple is dying. It's a matter of record.</htmltext>
<tokenext>None of this matters : Apple is dying .
It 's a matter of record .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>None of this matters: Apple is dying.
It's a matter of record.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29857017</id>
	<title>Mac OS X quality is failing</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256402520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Context: I've been a software engineer for 25+ years.  Solaris is the best server O/S.  MacOSX is the best desktop O/S.  In my home I have Solaris server and multiple Macs.</p><p>The dropping of ZFS by Apple is disappointing.</p><p>It is yet one more symptom of the degrading state of Apple software.  Over the last year I've seen noticeable and serious drop in quality.  It's starting to look awful familiar to me (having lived it with various employers) - more and more "features", more and more "date-driven" releases, less and less quality.  If they keep on this path they may eventually not be any better than Windows.</p><p>Apple, and Apple users, would be much better off if they stopped trying to develop and maintain an inferior operating system and spent their resources on applications and the user environment.  A Solaris core with Mac user environment and applications would be the best of both worlds.</p><p>Of course this will never happen as egos and marketing BS will prevent it.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Context : I 've been a software engineer for 25 + years .
Solaris is the best server O/S .
MacOSX is the best desktop O/S .
In my home I have Solaris server and multiple Macs.The dropping of ZFS by Apple is disappointing.It is yet one more symptom of the degrading state of Apple software .
Over the last year I 've seen noticeable and serious drop in quality .
It 's starting to look awful familiar to me ( having lived it with various employers ) - more and more " features " , more and more " date-driven " releases , less and less quality .
If they keep on this path they may eventually not be any better than Windows.Apple , and Apple users , would be much better off if they stopped trying to develop and maintain an inferior operating system and spent their resources on applications and the user environment .
A Solaris core with Mac user environment and applications would be the best of both worlds.Of course this will never happen as egos and marketing BS will prevent it .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Context: I've been a software engineer for 25+ years.
Solaris is the best server O/S.
MacOSX is the best desktop O/S.
In my home I have Solaris server and multiple Macs.The dropping of ZFS by Apple is disappointing.It is yet one more symptom of the degrading state of Apple software.
Over the last year I've seen noticeable and serious drop in quality.
It's starting to look awful familiar to me (having lived it with various employers) - more and more "features", more and more "date-driven" releases, less and less quality.
If they keep on this path they may eventually not be any better than Windows.Apple, and Apple users, would be much better off if they stopped trying to develop and maintain an inferior operating system and spent their resources on applications and the user environment.
A Solaris core with Mac user environment and applications would be the best of both worlds.Of course this will never happen as egos and marketing BS will prevent it.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854037</id>
	<title>Has nothing to do with Sun ZFS</title>
	<author>kriston</author>
	<datestamp>1256315880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Does this have nothing to do with Sun ZFS?  I hope I didn't miss something.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Does this have nothing to do with Sun ZFS ?
I hope I did n't miss something .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Does this have nothing to do with Sun ZFS?
I hope I didn't miss something.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853493</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>RocketRabbit</author>
	<datestamp>1256307480000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is a huge loss.  Clearly you haven't managed a datacenter.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is a huge loss .
Clearly you have n't managed a datacenter .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is a huge loss.
Clearly you haven't managed a datacenter.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854709</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256326920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Simply untrue.  Oracle is still committed to BtrFS. In fact in one article I read, they quoted lead developers as saying that BtrFS fit Oracle's needs better than ZFS.  This led to speculation that in the long term BtrFS would replace ZFS.  Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation, likely.  Probably what will really happen is that ZFS will remain with Solaris while BtrFS becomes the standard across the Linux world, and will obviously be heavily used by Oracle database users.  The fact also is that BtrFS is a better design than ZFS.  ZFS was revolutionary, no doubt about it.  But BtrFS has more of a future and more potential due to its ingenious use of btrees in a way (I don't know the particulars) that was previously not thought to be possible, which is why ZFS did it differently.  So while they are very similar file systems in effect and characteristics (COW, etc), under the hood they are very different and BtrFS seems to be technically superior, though lacking in features so far (no RAID-5 yet).</p><p>Most Linux kernel developers consider Ext4 to be a stopgap until BtrFS is ready.  And it is being developed fairly intensely still, the lack of release notwithstanding.  Once it is ready, I expect and hope a windows driver will surface, allowing it to be a more universal file format.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Simply untrue .
Oracle is still committed to BtrFS .
In fact in one article I read , they quoted lead developers as saying that BtrFS fit Oracle 's needs better than ZFS .
This led to speculation that in the long term BtrFS would replace ZFS .
Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation , likely .
Probably what will really happen is that ZFS will remain with Solaris while BtrFS becomes the standard across the Linux world , and will obviously be heavily used by Oracle database users .
The fact also is that BtrFS is a better design than ZFS .
ZFS was revolutionary , no doubt about it .
But BtrFS has more of a future and more potential due to its ingenious use of btrees in a way ( I do n't know the particulars ) that was previously not thought to be possible , which is why ZFS did it differently .
So while they are very similar file systems in effect and characteristics ( COW , etc ) , under the hood they are very different and BtrFS seems to be technically superior , though lacking in features so far ( no RAID-5 yet ) .Most Linux kernel developers consider Ext4 to be a stopgap until BtrFS is ready .
And it is being developed fairly intensely still , the lack of release notwithstanding .
Once it is ready , I expect and hope a windows driver will surface , allowing it to be a more universal file format .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Simply untrue.
Oracle is still committed to BtrFS.
In fact in one article I read, they quoted lead developers as saying that BtrFS fit Oracle's needs better than ZFS.
This led to speculation that in the long term BtrFS would replace ZFS.
Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation, likely.
Probably what will really happen is that ZFS will remain with Solaris while BtrFS becomes the standard across the Linux world, and will obviously be heavily used by Oracle database users.
The fact also is that BtrFS is a better design than ZFS.
ZFS was revolutionary, no doubt about it.
But BtrFS has more of a future and more potential due to its ingenious use of btrees in a way (I don't know the particulars) that was previously not thought to be possible, which is why ZFS did it differently.
So while they are very similar file systems in effect and characteristics (COW, etc), under the hood they are very different and BtrFS seems to be technically superior, though lacking in features so far (no RAID-5 yet).Most Linux kernel developers consider Ext4 to be a stopgap until BtrFS is ready.
And it is being developed fairly intensely still, the lack of release notwithstanding.
Once it is ready, I expect and hope a windows driver will surface, allowing it to be a more universal file format.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</id>
	<title>The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Posting anon, lest someone guess who my sources are.</p><p>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing.  Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of "hell, we could do it ourselves for that".</p><p>Add to that, the Oracle buyout and Sun going into management paralysis, and Apple decided to go it alone.</p><p>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.  I'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system, probably in the 10.7 timeframe.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Posting anon , lest someone guess who my sources are.The long and short of it was , Apple and Sun could n't come to terms on the licensing .
Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of " hell , we could do it ourselves for that " .Add to that , the Oracle buyout and Sun going into management paralysis , and Apple decided to go it alone.Apple 's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ( who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down ) , and the architect of the BeFS .
I 'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system , probably in the 10.7 timeframe .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Posting anon, lest someone guess who my sources are.The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing.
Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of "hell, we could do it ourselves for that".Add to that, the Oracle buyout and Sun going into management paralysis, and Apple decided to go it alone.Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.
I'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system, probably in the 10.7 timeframe.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853943</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>quercus.aeternam</author>
	<datestamp>1256314260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How about hybrid zfs?</p><p>Having a high performance SSD cache for your data seems extremely nice - especially considering the small working set for most consumers.</p><p>Think 'readyboost on steroids.'  No thumb drive can<nobr> <wbr></nobr>/touch/ SATA II speeds.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How about hybrid zfs ? Having a high performance SSD cache for your data seems extremely nice - especially considering the small working set for most consumers.Think 'readyboost on steroids .
' No thumb drive can /touch/ SATA II speeds .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How about hybrid zfs?Having a high performance SSD cache for your data seems extremely nice - especially considering the small working set for most consumers.Think 'readyboost on steroids.
'  No thumb drive can /touch/ SATA II speeds.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854171</id>
	<title>You know what a non-compete agreement is?</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1256317920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>After all these years, Sun knows how to cover themselves. ZFS engineers can't just cross the road to Apple and work on a directly comparable product.
</p><p>
Also, the "lead engineers" are still at Sun, if the ZFS list is anything to go by. In particular Jeff Bonwick.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>After all these years , Sun knows how to cover themselves .
ZFS engineers ca n't just cross the road to Apple and work on a directly comparable product .
Also , the " lead engineers " are still at Sun , if the ZFS list is anything to go by .
In particular Jeff Bonwick .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>After all these years, Sun knows how to cover themselves.
ZFS engineers can't just cross the road to Apple and work on a directly comparable product.
Also, the "lead engineers" are still at Sun, if the ZFS list is anything to go by.
In particular Jeff Bonwick.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858687</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256414760000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Dear AC,</p><p>Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary, than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs?</p><p>Best regards.</p></div><p>What difference does it make what value you place on it? Whether it's true or not, you don't have any input into Apple's decisions anyway.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Dear AC,Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary , than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs ? Best regards.What difference does it make what value you place on it ?
Whether it 's true or not , you do n't have any input into Apple 's decisions anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Dear AC,Why should we place any higher value on your particular commentary, than all of the other rampant speculation which will be posted below by additional ACs?Best regards.What difference does it make what value you place on it?
Whether it's true or not, you don't have any input into Apple's decisions anyway.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853523</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256307780000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Yes,"I'm Posting anon, lest someone guess who my sources are" too.  Wow I can do that.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; What monies ?  Apple hired a developer to port zfs, see the archived zfs mailing list to see this.<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; DTrace is on OS-X, exact same license as ZFS.</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; Yes, Mr (or Ms) Anon, you're talking bull.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>    Yes , " I 'm Posting anon , lest someone guess who my sources are " too .
Wow I can do that .
      What monies ?
Apple hired a developer to port zfs , see the archived zfs mailing list to see this .
      DTrace is on OS-X , exact same license as ZFS .
    Yes , Mr ( or Ms ) Anon , you 're talking bull .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
    Yes,"I'm Posting anon, lest someone guess who my sources are" too.
Wow I can do that.
      What monies ?
Apple hired a developer to port zfs, see the archived zfs mailing list to see this.
      DTrace is on OS-X, exact same license as ZFS.
    Yes, Mr (or Ms) Anon, you're talking bull.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854335</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>phantomcircuit</author>
	<datestamp>1256320200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>The main advantage of ZFS is the silent data corruption becomes non existent.  All of your data is protected with a string checksum.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>The main advantage of ZFS is the silent data corruption becomes non existent .
All of your data is protected with a string checksum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The main advantage of ZFS is the silent data corruption becomes non existent.
All of your data is protected with a string checksum.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856723</id>
	<title>Re:Another nextgen FS on the way? Hmmm.</title>
	<author>nine-times</author>
	<datestamp>1256400240000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I generally think this is a good thing, lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway.</p></div><p>I agree.  Having options is good, especially since there isn't a clear winner yet.  Still, I'd like to have a filesystem that will be usable (ideally read/wire + boot) by all major operating systems.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I generally think this is a good thing , lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway.I agree .
Having options is good , especially since there is n't a clear winner yet .
Still , I 'd like to have a filesystem that will be usable ( ideally read/wire + boot ) by all major operating systems .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I generally think this is a good thing, lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway.I agree.
Having options is good, especially since there isn't a clear winner yet.
Still, I'd like to have a filesystem that will be usable (ideally read/wire + boot) by all major operating systems.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853741</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>supertux</author>
	<datestamp>1256310660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>SSDs are tiny compared to the spinning rust variety.</p><p>But here is where ZFS kicks butt.  You can attach SSDs to be the read and/or write cache for your large array of magnetic disk.  You use an MLC SSDs for read cache, and a SLCs for write cache.  If you do this you effectively turn your big slow array into crazy crazy fast storage.</p><p>I set up a opensolaris/zfs setup like this at home.  I connect to it from my gaming pc, and have my apps installed on an iscsi target on opensolaris through regular gigabit.  Do you know how crazy fast games launch?  All games?  It is like I am playing them all from a ram drive.  I probably can't express how awesome it is.</p><p>Also, from a recent conference on ZFS it looks like they will have the ability to increase/decrease widths of strips, encryption, and single instance storage soon.  Single instance storage will be great for me since my home systems get their disk from the server like I mentioned about.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>SSDs are tiny compared to the spinning rust variety.But here is where ZFS kicks butt .
You can attach SSDs to be the read and/or write cache for your large array of magnetic disk .
You use an MLC SSDs for read cache , and a SLCs for write cache .
If you do this you effectively turn your big slow array into crazy crazy fast storage.I set up a opensolaris/zfs setup like this at home .
I connect to it from my gaming pc , and have my apps installed on an iscsi target on opensolaris through regular gigabit .
Do you know how crazy fast games launch ?
All games ?
It is like I am playing them all from a ram drive .
I probably ca n't express how awesome it is.Also , from a recent conference on ZFS it looks like they will have the ability to increase/decrease widths of strips , encryption , and single instance storage soon .
Single instance storage will be great for me since my home systems get their disk from the server like I mentioned about .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>SSDs are tiny compared to the spinning rust variety.But here is where ZFS kicks butt.
You can attach SSDs to be the read and/or write cache for your large array of magnetic disk.
You use an MLC SSDs for read cache, and a SLCs for write cache.
If you do this you effectively turn your big slow array into crazy crazy fast storage.I set up a opensolaris/zfs setup like this at home.
I connect to it from my gaming pc, and have my apps installed on an iscsi target on opensolaris through regular gigabit.
Do you know how crazy fast games launch?
All games?
It is like I am playing them all from a ram drive.
I probably can't express how awesome it is.Also, from a recent conference on ZFS it looks like they will have the ability to increase/decrease widths of strips, encryption, and single instance storage soon.
Single instance storage will be great for me since my home systems get their disk from the server like I mentioned about.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133</id>
	<title>The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303700000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>I doubt that it's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened, especially considering that the project seems to have stagnated steadily in successive versions of OS X. There just doesn't seem to have been the will within the OS X development group to make this work and to support and fully integrate ZFS into the inner workings of the OS. Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been too much of a big ask to integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop. They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just wasn't possible.<br> <br>

However, they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they're hiring filesystem engineers. I don't see any evidence that this was anything other than a technical avenue that they've explored that has fallen by the wayside as so many have before.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that it 's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened , especially considering that the project seems to have stagnated steadily in successive versions of OS X. There just does n't seem to have been the will within the OS X development group to make this work and to support and fully integrate ZFS into the inner workings of the OS .
Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been too much of a big ask to integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop .
They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just was n't possible .
However , they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they 're hiring filesystem engineers .
I do n't see any evidence that this was anything other than a technical avenue that they 've explored that has fallen by the wayside as so many have before .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that it's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened, especially considering that the project seems to have stagnated steadily in successive versions of OS X. There just doesn't seem to have been the will within the OS X development group to make this work and to support and fully integrate ZFS into the inner workings of the OS.
Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been too much of a big ask to integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop.
They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just wasn't possible.
However, they still desperately need a next generation filesystem and according to the linked article they're hiring filesystem engineers.
I don't see any evidence that this was anything other than a technical avenue that they've explored that has fallen by the wayside as so many have before.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073</id>
	<title>God forbid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS is</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS is</tokentext>
<sentencetext>God forbid the summary tell us what ZFS is</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854301</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>ppanon</author>
	<datestamp>1256319600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down</p></div></blockquote><p>
Of course all heavy elements like lead developers are blown off during the supernova. Good thing too, because once Sun shrinks below the Schwarzchild radius, no developers will be able to escape.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down Of course all heavy elements like lead developers are blown off during the supernova .
Good thing too , because once Sun shrinks below the Schwarzchild radius , no developers will be able to escape .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down
Of course all heavy elements like lead developers are blown off during the supernova.
Good thing too, because once Sun shrinks below the Schwarzchild radius, no developers will be able to escape.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853647</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309400000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>It would have been like Microsoft dropping <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winfs" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">WinFS</a> [wikipedia.org] for Vista, right?</htmltext>
<tokenext>It would have been like Microsoft dropping WinFS [ wikipedia.org ] for Vista , right ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It would have been like Microsoft dropping WinFS [wikipedia.org] for Vista, right?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854431</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Just Some Guy</author>
	<datestamp>1256321520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.</p></div><p>It's now marked as <a href="http://svn.freebsd.org/viewvc/base?view=revision&amp;revision=197221" title="freebsd.org">production quality</a> [freebsd.org] in FreeBSD, and it's now entirely possible to have ZFS-only systems.  My home server boots directly into a ZFS root filesystem without any UFS filesystems to help it.  Given those two facts, I'd say they've been able to run and integrate it quite nicely.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FreeBSD people still have n't been able to run and integrate it reliably.It 's now marked as production quality [ freebsd.org ] in FreeBSD , and it 's now entirely possible to have ZFS-only systems .
My home server boots directly into a ZFS root filesystem without any UFS filesystems to help it .
Given those two facts , I 'd say they 've been able to run and integrate it quite nicely .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.It's now marked as production quality [freebsd.org] in FreeBSD, and it's now entirely possible to have ZFS-only systems.
My home server boots directly into a ZFS root filesystem without any UFS filesystems to help it.
Given those two facts, I'd say they've been able to run and integrate it quite nicely.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853423</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Grishnakh</author>
	<datestamp>1256306640000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>How did Microsoft get into this?  If MS ever adopted ZFS, they'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.</p><p>What's going to happen is the status quo will remain unchanged: every major vendor will use a different standard filesystem, and only Linux users will be able to read them all (though there may be a little time before they've fully developed the drivers to do so).  After all Linux users can already use btrfs natively, and ZFS using FUSE.  Anything new that Apple makes will likely be open-source since it'll be at the Darwin level so Linux can use that too (though perhaps only through FUSE because of licensing again), and anything MS makes will of course be reverse-engineered so it'll take the longest to support.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>How did Microsoft get into this ?
If MS ever adopted ZFS , they 'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.What 's going to happen is the status quo will remain unchanged : every major vendor will use a different standard filesystem , and only Linux users will be able to read them all ( though there may be a little time before they 've fully developed the drivers to do so ) .
After all Linux users can already use btrfs natively , and ZFS using FUSE .
Anything new that Apple makes will likely be open-source since it 'll be at the Darwin level so Linux can use that too ( though perhaps only through FUSE because of licensing again ) , and anything MS makes will of course be reverse-engineered so it 'll take the longest to support .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>How did Microsoft get into this?
If MS ever adopted ZFS, they'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.What's going to happen is the status quo will remain unchanged: every major vendor will use a different standard filesystem, and only Linux users will be able to read them all (though there may be a little time before they've fully developed the drivers to do so).
After all Linux users can already use btrfs natively, and ZFS using FUSE.
Anything new that Apple makes will likely be open-source since it'll be at the Darwin level so Linux can use that too (though perhaps only through FUSE because of licensing again), and anything MS makes will of course be reverse-engineered so it'll take the longest to support.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853581</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You're saying CRT's never had tearing?  My LCD has a 85Hz refresh rate, and it was cheap.  You seem to be remembering CRT's as having infinite refresh speed for some reason.  Hell, the fact that CRT's actually *blank* and LCD's don't makes CRT's far worse as that particular family of artifact goes.</p><p>As for color gamut, yeah the cheap one isn't quite up to it.  But LED TV's are out now tho and they have a gamut that's bigger than any CRT ever was.  That'll be coming to monitors real soon now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You 're saying CRT 's never had tearing ?
My LCD has a 85Hz refresh rate , and it was cheap .
You seem to be remembering CRT 's as having infinite refresh speed for some reason .
Hell , the fact that CRT 's actually * blank * and LCD 's do n't makes CRT 's far worse as that particular family of artifact goes.As for color gamut , yeah the cheap one is n't quite up to it .
But LED TV 's are out now tho and they have a gamut that 's bigger than any CRT ever was .
That 'll be coming to monitors real soon now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You're saying CRT's never had tearing?
My LCD has a 85Hz refresh rate, and it was cheap.
You seem to be remembering CRT's as having infinite refresh speed for some reason.
Hell, the fact that CRT's actually *blank* and LCD's don't makes CRT's far worse as that particular family of artifact goes.As for color gamut, yeah the cheap one isn't quite up to it.
But LED TV's are out now tho and they have a gamut that's bigger than any CRT ever was.
That'll be coming to monitors real soon now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854567</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256324880000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.</p></div></blockquote><p>Where did you get that from?  I've got a machine thats been up since a few days after FBSD 7.2 was released that only has ZFS and serves data constantly.  Its been moving filling my gigabit ethernet links for about 8 hours today alone, and this isn't the first time its done a lot of IO for me.</p><p>I admit, I don't really 'stress' the system, but the only problem with ZFS on FBSD is its inability to cope with low memory situations.  FBSD 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram and you won't see a problem unless you screw with the ARC and mess it up.</p><p>ZFS DOES have multiple layers of redundancy.  Including block level checksuming.  Why can no desktop mac have that?  Two drives, mirrored vdev, turn on checksuming, set copies=2.  You now have three layers of protection and correction against bit rot and failure.  Any of those layers detect a problem during a read and they pull the data from a new place.  Have you actually read anything about ZFS from someone who knew what they were talking about?</p><p>I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't handle it magically' but I've pulled a drive out of a zraid vdev, written random data to a random location and it was happy to detect it and correct it on the fly, letting me know it happened in syslog.</p><p>I don't think you actually know anything about ZFS, but then again, I am a self admitting ZFS fanboy.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The FreeBSD people still have n't been able to run and integrate it reliably.Where did you get that from ?
I 've got a machine thats been up since a few days after FBSD 7.2 was released that only has ZFS and serves data constantly .
Its been moving filling my gigabit ethernet links for about 8 hours today alone , and this is n't the first time its done a lot of IO for me.I admit , I do n't really 'stress ' the system , but the only problem with ZFS on FBSD is its inability to cope with low memory situations .
FBSD 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram and you wo n't see a problem unless you screw with the ARC and mess it up.ZFS DOES have multiple layers of redundancy .
Including block level checksuming .
Why can no desktop mac have that ?
Two drives , mirrored vdev , turn on checksuming , set copies = 2 .
You now have three layers of protection and correction against bit rot and failure .
Any of those layers detect a problem during a read and they pull the data from a new place .
Have you actually read anything about ZFS from someone who knew what they were talking about ? I 'm not sure what you mean by 'does n't handle it magically ' but I 've pulled a drive out of a zraid vdev , written random data to a random location and it was happy to detect it and correct it on the fly , letting me know it happened in syslog.I do n't think you actually know anything about ZFS , but then again , I am a self admitting ZFS fanboy .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The FreeBSD people still haven't been able to run and integrate it reliably.Where did you get that from?
I've got a machine thats been up since a few days after FBSD 7.2 was released that only has ZFS and serves data constantly.
Its been moving filling my gigabit ethernet links for about 8 hours today alone, and this isn't the first time its done a lot of IO for me.I admit, I don't really 'stress' the system, but the only problem with ZFS on FBSD is its inability to cope with low memory situations.
FBSD 64 bit with 4 gigs of ram and you won't see a problem unless you screw with the ARC and mess it up.ZFS DOES have multiple layers of redundancy.
Including block level checksuming.
Why can no desktop mac have that?
Two drives, mirrored vdev, turn on checksuming, set copies=2.
You now have three layers of protection and correction against bit rot and failure.
Any of those layers detect a problem during a read and they pull the data from a new place.
Have you actually read anything about ZFS from someone who knew what they were talking about?I'm not sure what you mean by 'doesn't handle it magically' but I've pulled a drive out of a zraid vdev, written random data to a random location and it was happy to detect it and correct it on the fly, letting me know it happened in syslog.I don't think you actually know anything about ZFS, but then again, I am a self admitting ZFS fanboy.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29857613</id>
	<title>Patent Indemnification</title>
	<author>ThrowAwaySociety</author>
	<datestamp>1256407320000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing. Sun wanted a lot of money...</p></div></blockquote><p>That doesn't make any sense. I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege. Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple (as they usually are) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem.</p></div><p>Scuttlebutt on the web seems to be that Sun wanted Apple to stand on its own if it was sued over ZFS, and Apple wanted Sun to pay its costs if it was sued over ZFS.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long and short of it was , Apple and Sun could n't come to terms on the licensing .
Sun wanted a lot of money...That does n't make any sense .
I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege .
Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple ( as they usually are ) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem.Scuttlebutt on the web seems to be that Sun wanted Apple to stand on its own if it was sued over ZFS , and Apple wanted Sun to pay its costs if it was sued over ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing.
Sun wanted a lot of money...That doesn't make any sense.
I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege.
Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple (as they usually are) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem.Scuttlebutt on the web seems to be that Sun wanted Apple to stand on its own if it was sued over ZFS, and Apple wanted Sun to pay its costs if it was sued over ZFS.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853325</id>
	<title>Re:Not surprised.</title>
	<author>larry bagina</author>
	<datestamp>1256305740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>No shit.  I can't wait to switch to Windows 7 with the totally awesome WinFS.</htmltext>
<tokenext>No shit .
I ca n't wait to switch to Windows 7 with the totally awesome WinFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>No shit.
I can't wait to switch to Windows 7 with the totally awesome WinFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853229</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861379</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'll admit I know nothing about ZFS, but I do understand coding theory.</p><p>"Ultimately, the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data"</p><p>This is in the general sense outright false. Bit rot refers to the idea where, over time, individual bits may be come corrupt or unreadable, when this happens in relation to the data the amount of bits lost is small scale, else it's something much more serious than bit rot, like an outright failing storage medium. As such there are many algorithms you can employ that can handle error checking and error correction by storing only a relatively tiny amount of additional data, but fundamentally the amount of additional data per block of data you wish to protect depends on how rapid you might expect bit rot to occur. It's effectively a sliding scale, but for general computing usage the amount of data you would need to store in addition would be quite small, the premise that you need to store much additional data such that there's a major price is false- particularly as we lose space with many file systems anyway due to block sizes.</p><p>Of course, you can have noticable cost to data integrity if you're intent on supporting unreliable storage mediums or data transfer systems like say, heavily failing hard drives or low power wireless communications from probes orbiting Mars or wherever.</p><p>I do not understand why you would suggest a home system could not support the negligible levels of redundancy required to ensure data integrity capable of protecting against bit rot, unless you're confusing bit rot with the idea of supporting heavily unreliable storage systems, but in that case it's more like agressive terminal cancer than rot.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'll admit I know nothing about ZFS , but I do understand coding theory .
" Ultimately , the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot ' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data " This is in the general sense outright false .
Bit rot refers to the idea where , over time , individual bits may be come corrupt or unreadable , when this happens in relation to the data the amount of bits lost is small scale , else it 's something much more serious than bit rot , like an outright failing storage medium .
As such there are many algorithms you can employ that can handle error checking and error correction by storing only a relatively tiny amount of additional data , but fundamentally the amount of additional data per block of data you wish to protect depends on how rapid you might expect bit rot to occur .
It 's effectively a sliding scale , but for general computing usage the amount of data you would need to store in addition would be quite small , the premise that you need to store much additional data such that there 's a major price is false- particularly as we lose space with many file systems anyway due to block sizes.Of course , you can have noticable cost to data integrity if you 're intent on supporting unreliable storage mediums or data transfer systems like say , heavily failing hard drives or low power wireless communications from probes orbiting Mars or wherever.I do not understand why you would suggest a home system could not support the negligible levels of redundancy required to ensure data integrity capable of protecting against bit rot , unless you 're confusing bit rot with the idea of supporting heavily unreliable storage systems , but in that case it 's more like agressive terminal cancer than rot .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'll admit I know nothing about ZFS, but I do understand coding theory.
"Ultimately, the only way to deal with silent data corruption or 'bit rot' is to have multiple levels of redundancy several times over for your data"This is in the general sense outright false.
Bit rot refers to the idea where, over time, individual bits may be come corrupt or unreadable, when this happens in relation to the data the amount of bits lost is small scale, else it's something much more serious than bit rot, like an outright failing storage medium.
As such there are many algorithms you can employ that can handle error checking and error correction by storing only a relatively tiny amount of additional data, but fundamentally the amount of additional data per block of data you wish to protect depends on how rapid you might expect bit rot to occur.
It's effectively a sliding scale, but for general computing usage the amount of data you would need to store in addition would be quite small, the premise that you need to store much additional data such that there's a major price is false- particularly as we lose space with many file systems anyway due to block sizes.Of course, you can have noticable cost to data integrity if you're intent on supporting unreliable storage mediums or data transfer systems like say, heavily failing hard drives or low power wireless communications from probes orbiting Mars or wherever.I do not understand why you would suggest a home system could not support the negligible levels of redundancy required to ensure data integrity capable of protecting against bit rot, unless you're confusing bit rot with the idea of supporting heavily unreliable storage systems, but in that case it's more like agressive terminal cancer than rot.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856491</id>
	<title>Re:ZFS is overhyped and not a good fit for desktop</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256397960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Why does everyone think that there can only be one file system supported by the OS?  Keep removable media as HFS+ (what the file system was designed for back in the 80s!) and keep your local storage as ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Why does everyone think that there can only be one file system supported by the OS ?
Keep removable media as HFS + ( what the file system was designed for back in the 80s !
) and keep your local storage as ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Why does everyone think that there can only be one file system supported by the OS?
Keep removable media as HFS+ (what the file system was designed for back in the 80s!
) and keep your local storage as ZFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853339</id>
	<title>Had to pull developers away</title>
	<author>Linux\_ho</author>
	<datestamp>1256305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Troll</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Needed more help fixing all the problems with the iPhone 3.1 upgrade.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Needed more help fixing all the problems with the iPhone 3.1 upgrade .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Needed more help fixing all the problems with the iPhone 3.1 upgrade.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>segedunum</author>
	<datestamp>1256305440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing. Sun wanted a lot of money...</p></div></blockquote><p>
That doesn't make any sense. I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege. Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple (as they usually are) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long and short of it was , Apple and Sun could n't come to terms on the licensing .
Sun wanted a lot of money.. . That does n't make any sense .
I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege .
Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple ( as they usually are ) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing.
Sun wanted a lot of money...
That doesn't make any sense.
I fail to see why Apple should agree licensing terms for a CDDL licensed open source project or how Sun could demand money for the privilege.
Sun were positively overflowing with love towards Apple (as they usually are) when they heard that anyone would actually be interested in their uber new filesystem.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853953</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>That doesn't make any sense.</i></p><p>That's the same thing Apple said, and that's why they're not going to continue with ZFS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>That does n't make any sense.That 's the same thing Apple said , and that 's why they 're not going to continue with ZFS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>That doesn't make any sense.That's the same thing Apple said, and that's why they're not going to continue with ZFS.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856797</id>
	<title>I would suggest this could be a technical issue.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256401020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I have never believed this to be an issue of licensing, but one of technical difficulty, having a fair amount of experience with ZFS, Solaris and MacOS I can say a few things with some conviction.</p><p>1. ZFS is very aggressive and can expect a lot of a system, look at its early effects on Oracle DB and NFS and you will see a lot has gone into its implementation in Solaris.</p><p>2. ZFS boot took a good amount of time to get working in a supported fashion on Solaris, it would be an assumption that boot would be one of the requirements/reasons to port this to MacOS, the snapshot/backup/upgrade possibilities would be to great to pass.</p><p>3. It would not be unfair to say that the Darwin kernel is not as mature as the Solaris kernel in regards to fine tuning, especially in the area of memory management, if you doubt this, take two comparable systems and load them up.</p><p>4. I've got an external drive that I was at one point sharing with both a Solaris host and a MacOS host, when I put the Mac under a heavy load and than let it get idle strange things would start to happen, I suspect but can't say for a fact that some of the aggressive caching mentioned in my first point ended up in a VM file, and I suspect that my third point would explain this, Solaris can/does limit the amount of ZFS memory cache dynamically so that this scenario will in most cases simply not occur.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I have never believed this to be an issue of licensing , but one of technical difficulty , having a fair amount of experience with ZFS , Solaris and MacOS I can say a few things with some conviction.1 .
ZFS is very aggressive and can expect a lot of a system , look at its early effects on Oracle DB and NFS and you will see a lot has gone into its implementation in Solaris.2 .
ZFS boot took a good amount of time to get working in a supported fashion on Solaris , it would be an assumption that boot would be one of the requirements/reasons to port this to MacOS , the snapshot/backup/upgrade possibilities would be to great to pass.3 .
It would not be unfair to say that the Darwin kernel is not as mature as the Solaris kernel in regards to fine tuning , especially in the area of memory management , if you doubt this , take two comparable systems and load them up.4 .
I 've got an external drive that I was at one point sharing with both a Solaris host and a MacOS host , when I put the Mac under a heavy load and than let it get idle strange things would start to happen , I suspect but ca n't say for a fact that some of the aggressive caching mentioned in my first point ended up in a VM file , and I suspect that my third point would explain this , Solaris can/does limit the amount of ZFS memory cache dynamically so that this scenario will in most cases simply not occur .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I have never believed this to be an issue of licensing, but one of technical difficulty, having a fair amount of experience with ZFS, Solaris and MacOS I can say a few things with some conviction.1.
ZFS is very aggressive and can expect a lot of a system, look at its early effects on Oracle DB and NFS and you will see a lot has gone into its implementation in Solaris.2.
ZFS boot took a good amount of time to get working in a supported fashion on Solaris, it would be an assumption that boot would be one of the requirements/reasons to port this to MacOS, the snapshot/backup/upgrade possibilities would be to great to pass.3.
It would not be unfair to say that the Darwin kernel is not as mature as the Solaris kernel in regards to fine tuning, especially in the area of memory management, if you doubt this, take two comparable systems and load them up.4.
I've got an external drive that I was at one point sharing with both a Solaris host and a MacOS host, when I put the Mac under a heavy load and than let it get idle strange things would start to happen, I suspect but can't say for a fact that some of the aggressive caching mentioned in my first point ended up in a VM file, and I suspect that my third point would explain this, Solaris can/does limit the amount of ZFS memory cache dynamically so that this scenario will in most cases simply not occur.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853743</id>
	<title>another fucking wheel being made</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256310660000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Upgrade to an SSD, and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you're using. You're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures. As far as I can see, the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it doesn't even do encryption. I don't think this is a major loss.</p></div><p>And how do you know the data you read off your disk is the same data you wrote to it? ZFS is the only production-ready file system that uses checksums to make sure your data is consistent and there hasn't been bit rot (and can fix bit rot if you have redundancy).</p><p>ZFS is also able to shim in SSDs so that you can get the cheap capacity of SATAs, but the speed and latency of SSDs at the fraction of the price:</p><p>http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/hybrid\_storage\_pool\_top\_speeds</p><p>Snapshots are awesome, especially when you can replicate them to a remote system over SSH:</p><p>http://www.markround.com/archives/38-ZFS-Replication.html</p><p>It's linear time finding changed blocks, and not like rsync where you have to stat() every single file on a file system. You can actually snapshot every five seconds, and do near real-time replication over an oceanic link (which one of the ZFS developers did between China and California).</p><p>According to a recent talk by the head people of ZFS (Bonwick and Moore), crypto and de-dupe are expected to be committed by the end of this year. The crypto code has public patches available for code review.</p><p>Trust me, it's a big loss. I'm sure the smart people at Apple will think of something good, but ZFS has had a lot of pounding on it for many years (e.g., CERN with a lot of their LHC testing), and starting from scratch means another fucking wheel being created.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade to an SSD , and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you 're using .
You 're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures .
As far as I can see , the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it does n't even do encryption .
I do n't think this is a major loss.And how do you know the data you read off your disk is the same data you wrote to it ?
ZFS is the only production-ready file system that uses checksums to make sure your data is consistent and there has n't been bit rot ( and can fix bit rot if you have redundancy ) .ZFS is also able to shim in SSDs so that you can get the cheap capacity of SATAs , but the speed and latency of SSDs at the fraction of the price : http : //blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/hybrid \ _storage \ _pool \ _top \ _speedsSnapshots are awesome , especially when you can replicate them to a remote system over SSH : http : //www.markround.com/archives/38-ZFS-Replication.htmlIt 's linear time finding changed blocks , and not like rsync where you have to stat ( ) every single file on a file system .
You can actually snapshot every five seconds , and do near real-time replication over an oceanic link ( which one of the ZFS developers did between China and California ) .According to a recent talk by the head people of ZFS ( Bonwick and Moore ) , crypto and de-dupe are expected to be committed by the end of this year .
The crypto code has public patches available for code review.Trust me , it 's a big loss .
I 'm sure the smart people at Apple will think of something good , but ZFS has had a lot of pounding on it for many years ( e.g. , CERN with a lot of their LHC testing ) , and starting from scratch means another fucking wheel being created .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade to an SSD, and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you're using.
You're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures.
As far as I can see, the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it doesn't even do encryption.
I don't think this is a major loss.And how do you know the data you read off your disk is the same data you wrote to it?
ZFS is the only production-ready file system that uses checksums to make sure your data is consistent and there hasn't been bit rot (and can fix bit rot if you have redundancy).ZFS is also able to shim in SSDs so that you can get the cheap capacity of SATAs, but the speed and latency of SSDs at the fraction of the price:http://blogs.sun.com/brendan/entry/hybrid\_storage\_pool\_top\_speedsSnapshots are awesome, especially when you can replicate them to a remote system over SSH:http://www.markround.com/archives/38-ZFS-Replication.htmlIt's linear time finding changed blocks, and not like rsync where you have to stat() every single file on a file system.
You can actually snapshot every five seconds, and do near real-time replication over an oceanic link (which one of the ZFS developers did between China and California).According to a recent talk by the head people of ZFS (Bonwick and Moore), crypto and de-dupe are expected to be committed by the end of this year.
The crypto code has public patches available for code review.Trust me, it's a big loss.
I'm sure the smart people at Apple will think of something good, but ZFS has had a lot of pounding on it for many years (e.g., CERN with a lot of their LHC testing), and starting from scratch means another fucking wheel being created.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853085</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Redundant</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><a href="http://tinyurl.com/ygkkjyb" title="tinyurl.com" rel="nofollow">Link</a> [tinyurl.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>Link [ tinyurl.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Link [tinyurl.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</id>
	<title>Correction</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1256307720000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext>A lot of confusion has resulted from labelling ZFS a "filesystem". It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance, manageability, and data protection.

Merits close study, as the concepts of ZFS overtake current best practices, conventional filesystems and RAID. You can get this taste of the future today, if you're using Solaris 10/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD.</htmltext>
<tokenext>A lot of confusion has resulted from labelling ZFS a " filesystem " .
It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance , manageability , and data protection .
Merits close study , as the concepts of ZFS overtake current best practices , conventional filesystems and RAID .
You can get this taste of the future today , if you 're using Solaris 10/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>A lot of confusion has resulted from labelling ZFS a "filesystem".
It actually combines both volume management and filesystem layers to achieve unique levels of performance, manageability, and data protection.
Merits close study, as the concepts of ZFS overtake current best practices, conventional filesystems and RAID.
You can get this taste of the future today, if you're using Solaris 10/OpenSolaris/FreeBSD.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856271</id>
	<title>640 GB should be enough for anyone</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256395920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people. I don't think the increased filesystem limits (number of files, size of files) would matter for most folks.</p></div><p>So 640 KB^H^H TB should be enough for anyone?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people .
I do n't think the increased filesystem limits ( number of files , size of files ) would matter for most folks.So 640 KB ^ H ^ H TB should be enough for anyone ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people.
I don't think the increased filesystem limits (number of files, size of files) would matter for most folks.So 640 KB^H^H TB should be enough for anyone?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Robotbeat</author>
	<datestamp>1256307000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><blockquote><div><p>"The flip side is that I've heard that Apple's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system. And, perhaps not coincidentally, they're hiring." from <a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs" title="daringfireball.net">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs</a> [daringfireball.net]</p><p>This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system. <b>When it was clear ZFS wasn't coming to Linux, those guys got btrfs going,</b> now Apple is doing their own, while ZFS obviously will stay around too. Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this, and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will. This nonsense isnt helping, and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows. Can Oracle go over Sun's head on this or Sun==Oracle?</p></div></blockquote><p> (emphasis mine)</p><p>Unfortunately, btrfs isn't "going" anywhere. Guess who their development was funded by? That's right, Oracle! Notice that they haven't released anything new since BEFORE Sun's shareholders approved the acquisition? (Latest release on the btrfs wiki is v<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.19, released in June 2009) It's not exactly improving at a breakneck pace... If btrfs is going to go anywhere, they need some real development money.</p><p>Dang Oracle.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The flip side is that I 've heard that Apple 's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system .
And , perhaps not coincidentally , they 're hiring .
" from http : //daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs [ daringfireball.net ] This is pretty shitty because it 'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system .
When it was clear ZFS was n't coming to Linux , those guys got btrfs going , now Apple is doing their own , while ZFS obviously will stay around too .
Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this , and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will .
This nonsense isnt helping , and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that 'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows .
Can Oracle go over Sun 's head on this or Sun = = Oracle ?
( emphasis mine ) Unfortunately , btrfs is n't " going " anywhere .
Guess who their development was funded by ?
That 's right , Oracle !
Notice that they have n't released anything new since BEFORE Sun 's shareholders approved the acquisition ?
( Latest release on the btrfs wiki is v .19 , released in June 2009 ) It 's not exactly improving at a breakneck pace... If btrfs is going to go anywhere , they need some real development money.Dang Oracle .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The flip side is that I've heard that Apple's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system.
And, perhaps not coincidentally, they're hiring.
" from http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs [daringfireball.net]This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system.
When it was clear ZFS wasn't coming to Linux, those guys got btrfs going, now Apple is doing their own, while ZFS obviously will stay around too.
Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this, and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will.
This nonsense isnt helping, and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows.
Can Oracle go over Sun's head on this or Sun==Oracle?
(emphasis mine)Unfortunately, btrfs isn't "going" anywhere.
Guess who their development was funded by?
That's right, Oracle!
Notice that they haven't released anything new since BEFORE Sun's shareholders approved the acquisition?
(Latest release on the btrfs wiki is v .19, released in June 2009) It's not exactly improving at a breakneck pace... If btrfs is going to go anywhere, they need some real development money.Dang Oracle.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</id>
	<title>With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>a09bdb811a</author>
	<datestamp>1256304120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Upgrade to an SSD, and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you're using. You're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures. As far as I can see, the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it doesn't even do encryption. I don't think this is a major loss.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Upgrade to an SSD , and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you 're using .
You 're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures .
As far as I can see , the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it does n't even do encryption .
I do n't think this is a major loss .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Upgrade to an SSD, and it hardly matters what crusty old filesystem you're using.
You're still going to have far greater speed and no mechanical failures.
As far as I can see, the only vaguely useful ZFS feature is snapshots... it doesn't even do encryption.
I don't think this is a major loss.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866229</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Trillan</author>
	<datestamp>1256499960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Blameless? I wouldn't say that.</p><p>What I would say instead is there's no blame to be handed out on this. Apple decided not to integrate ZFS. That's their choice, isn't it? If you need ZFS, don't use Mac OS X.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Blameless ?
I would n't say that.What I would say instead is there 's no blame to be handed out on this .
Apple decided not to integrate ZFS .
That 's their choice , is n't it ?
If you need ZFS , do n't use Mac OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Blameless?
I wouldn't say that.What I would say instead is there's no blame to be handed out on this.
Apple decided not to integrate ZFS.
That's their choice, isn't it?
If you need ZFS, don't use Mac OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861065</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853319</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256305620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Notice that this was intended for OSX server, not OSX.  I don't know why someone would buy one, but Apple does sell disk arrays for use with their xserves.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Notice that this was intended for OSX server , not OSX .
I do n't know why someone would buy one , but Apple does sell disk arrays for use with their xserves .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Notice that this was intended for OSX server, not OSX.
I don't know why someone would buy one, but Apple does sell disk arrays for use with their xserves.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853469</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>jcr</author>
	<datestamp>1256307180000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.</i></p><p>Sure, but when you have  a team on hand that knows how to do it, and has been through the development of several different filesystems between them, why not build your own?</p><p><i>I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.</i></p><p>Who says they're doing it lightly?  Have you seen who they've got in that group?</p><p>-jcr</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.Sure , but when you have a team on hand that knows how to do it , and has been through the development of several different filesystems between them , why not build your own ? I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.Who says they 're doing it lightly ?
Have you seen who they 've got in that group ? -jcr</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.Sure, but when you have  a team on hand that knows how to do it, and has been through the development of several different filesystems between them, why not build your own?I think the chance of Apple wanting to engineer a new FS so lightly are pretty slim.Who says they're doing it lightly?
Have you seen who they've got in that group?-jcr</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854575</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>BitZtream</author>
	<datestamp>1256325120000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>And block level checksumming, and RAID5 with single and double parity, and mirroring, and compression, and sharing freespace between mount points.</p><p>SSDs can be used as read only cache in a zpool to speed up random access.</p><p>While you're sitting there crying about the no mechanical failures you had, but with a corrupted drive because of a controller failure on the drive, I'll just replace the drive and move on<nobr> <wbr></nobr>... with my snapshots too.</p><p>And just for reference:</p><p><a href="http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=zfs+encryption&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=zfs+encr&amp;aqi=g5g-m3" title="google.com">http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=zfs+encryption&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=zfs+encr&amp;aqi=g5g-m3</a> [google.com]</p><p>Its got encryption.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>And block level checksumming , and RAID5 with single and double parity , and mirroring , and compression , and sharing freespace between mount points.SSDs can be used as read only cache in a zpool to speed up random access.While you 're sitting there crying about the no mechanical failures you had , but with a corrupted drive because of a controller failure on the drive , I 'll just replace the drive and move on ... with my snapshots too.And just for reference : http : //www.google.com/search ? hl = en&amp;source = hp&amp;q = zfs + encryption&amp;aq = 0&amp;oq = zfs + encr&amp;aqi = g5g-m3 [ google.com ] Its got encryption .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>And block level checksumming, and RAID5 with single and double parity, and mirroring, and compression, and sharing freespace between mount points.SSDs can be used as read only cache in a zpool to speed up random access.While you're sitting there crying about the no mechanical failures you had, but with a corrupted drive because of a controller failure on the drive, I'll just replace the drive and move on ... with my snapshots too.And just for reference:http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&amp;source=hp&amp;q=zfs+encryption&amp;aq=0&amp;oq=zfs+encr&amp;aqi=g5g-m3 [google.com]Its got encryption.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853567</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>It's a good thing your editor still supports one sentence per paragraph.

</p><p>If it didn't, you might not be able to press enter as often.

</p><p>Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

</p><p>But it would make posts easier to read.

</p><p>Unlike this one.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>It 's a good thing your editor still supports one sentence per paragraph .
If it did n't , you might not be able to press enter as often .
Which is n't necessarily a bad thing .
But it would make posts easier to read .
Unlike this one .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>It's a good thing your editor still supports one sentence per paragraph.
If it didn't, you might not be able to press enter as often.
Which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
But it would make posts easier to read.
Unlike this one.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854453</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>dasmoo</author>
	<datestamp>1256322000000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><blockquote><div><p>By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically'. There is a severe price to be paid. If you don't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption.
I'm afraid that hardware, bad sector and disk issues are far, far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level. Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line. It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware (hello Solaris!) but I'm afraid it's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems.</p></div></blockquote> </div><p>What have you got against better data integrity, where ever it's coming from? Do you hate data or something?</p><p>I've been using ZFS for a few years and I haven't lost anything yet, which is more than I can say for my experience with ext3, reiser, jfs, NTFS, FAT, HFS+ and XFS (oh and VMFS, that shit just disappears). I've lost data, had systemic corruption or just had whole datasets vanish on me through all of those file systems. The data is usually recoverable for me, but I shouldn't have to be wasting my time looking for shitty little files on a broken file system. I'm sure that ZFS will break for me one day and then I'll complain about it too, however I'd normally have been burnt by now. </p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically' .
There is a severe price to be paid .
If you do n't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption .
I 'm afraid that hardware , bad sector and disk issues are far , far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level .
Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line .
It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware ( hello Solaris !
) but I 'm afraid it 's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems .
What have you got against better data integrity , where ever it 's coming from ?
Do you hate data or something ? I 've been using ZFS for a few years and I have n't lost anything yet , which is more than I can say for my experience with ext3 , reiser , jfs , NTFS , FAT , HFS + and XFS ( oh and VMFS , that shit just disappears ) .
I 've lost data , had systemic corruption or just had whole datasets vanish on me through all of those file systems .
The data is usually recoverable for me , but I should n't have to be wasting my time looking for shitty little files on a broken file system .
I 'm sure that ZFS will break for me one day and then I 'll complain about it too , however I 'd normally have been burnt by now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>By no stretch of the imagination does ZFS handle this 'magically'.
There is a severe price to be paid.
If you don't have redudancy then you will simply risk losing your ZFS pool if there is corruption.
I'm afraid that hardware, bad sector and disk issues are far, far more prevalent problems than data corruption at an OS level.
Many apparent corruption issues at the OS level are usually down to hardware issues somewhere down the line.
It might be a problem for operating systems with fairly shitty and poorly maintained disk and controller device drivers with a poor history on x86 and widely used hardware (hello Solaris!
) but I'm afraid it's just not a primary concern for everyone else or for those developing desktop operating systems.
What have you got against better data integrity, where ever it's coming from?
Do you hate data or something?I've been using ZFS for a few years and I haven't lost anything yet, which is more than I can say for my experience with ext3, reiser, jfs, NTFS, FAT, HFS+ and XFS (oh and VMFS, that shit just disappears).
I've lost data, had systemic corruption or just had whole datasets vanish on me through all of those file systems.
The data is usually recoverable for me, but I shouldn't have to be wasting my time looking for shitty little files on a broken file system.
I'm sure that ZFS will break for me one day and then I'll complain about it too, however I'd normally have been burnt by now. 
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853445</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>dangitman</author>
	<datestamp>1256306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.</p></div><p>It's so hard, it often makes the developers murder their (ex) girlfriends and remove the seats of their cars.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.It 's so hard , it often makes the developers murder their ( ex ) girlfriends and remove the seats of their cars .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Engineering a new filesystem is hard and expensive.It's so hard, it often makes the developers murder their (ex) girlfriends and remove the seats of their cars.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854131</id>
	<title>Disappointing...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256317380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>This is very disappointing. Although ZFS wasn't a make-or-break deal for me as to whether or not I'd go fully Apple at home (and I have..all members of my family have their own Apple system), this was a feature that I was really looking forward to. It would have been very useful on mHowever, it is what it is. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple took some of the concepts from ZFS and improved on them to make it their own.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>This is very disappointing .
Although ZFS was n't a make-or-break deal for me as to whether or not I 'd go fully Apple at home ( and I have..all members of my family have their own Apple system ) , this was a feature that I was really looking forward to .
It would have been very useful on mHowever , it is what it is .
I would n't be surprised if Apple took some of the concepts from ZFS and improved on them to make it their own .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>This is very disappointing.
Although ZFS wasn't a make-or-break deal for me as to whether or not I'd go fully Apple at home (and I have..all members of my family have their own Apple system), this was a feature that I was really looking forward to.
It would have been very useful on mHowever, it is what it is.
I wouldn't be surprised if Apple took some of the concepts from ZFS and improved on them to make it their own.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29864427</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256484360000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I'm going to agree anonymously.  Anyone that's used ZFS knows it's kind of a memory pig.  Anyone that's tried to use OS X for anything more than light server duty has discovered how weak its virtual memory capability is. Lean on it and it stays true to it's Mach underpinnings and thrashes.  Getting ZFS to work well would require the solid VM subsystem a server grade monolithic kernel provides, and Apple doesn't have it.</p><p>It's easy to forget how good the Solaris kernel is when you're distracted by all the old SVR4 cruft that surrounds it.  It's VM system is in a league of its own.  If Oracle somehow finds religion and decides to open ZFS, I'd expect only the BSD's and Linux to be able to handle it, and then possibly only after some growing pains.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I 'm going to agree anonymously .
Anyone that 's used ZFS knows it 's kind of a memory pig .
Anyone that 's tried to use OS X for anything more than light server duty has discovered how weak its virtual memory capability is .
Lean on it and it stays true to it 's Mach underpinnings and thrashes .
Getting ZFS to work well would require the solid VM subsystem a server grade monolithic kernel provides , and Apple does n't have it.It 's easy to forget how good the Solaris kernel is when you 're distracted by all the old SVR4 cruft that surrounds it .
It 's VM system is in a league of its own .
If Oracle somehow finds religion and decides to open ZFS , I 'd expect only the BSD 's and Linux to be able to handle it , and then possibly only after some growing pains .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I'm going to agree anonymously.
Anyone that's used ZFS knows it's kind of a memory pig.
Anyone that's tried to use OS X for anything more than light server duty has discovered how weak its virtual memory capability is.
Lean on it and it stays true to it's Mach underpinnings and thrashes.
Getting ZFS to work well would require the solid VM subsystem a server grade monolithic kernel provides, and Apple doesn't have it.It's easy to forget how good the Solaris kernel is when you're distracted by all the old SVR4 cruft that surrounds it.
It's VM system is in a league of its own.
If Oracle somehow finds religion and decides to open ZFS, I'd expect only the BSD's and Linux to be able to handle it, and then possibly only after some growing pains.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854145</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>balbeir</author>
	<datestamp>1256317620000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext>AIX has had a similar "filesystem" for a long time BTW so it's not such a novel idea</htmltext>
<tokenext>AIX has had a similar " filesystem " for a long time BTW so it 's not such a novel idea</tokentext>
<sentencetext>AIX has had a similar "filesystem" for a long time BTW so it's not such a novel idea</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856107</id>
	<title>Free Shopping Ecko Unltd jean,DG sweater man Hotte</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256394420000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Offtopic</modclass>
	<modscore>-1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Http://www.tntshoes.com<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like, Don't hesitate to contact us!<br>The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.<br>Features:<br>1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)<br>Size for women US5-8/10<br>2) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)<br>3) Many designs and colors available<br>4) Delivery can be prompt shipping<br>5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like,    Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photos<br>OUR WEBSITE:<br>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com</p><p>
&nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; &nbsp; Http://www.tntshoes.com</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Http : //www.tntshoes.com     You can free mix any size any style of you best like , You will find what your like , Do n't hesitate to contact us ! The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles , You will find what your like.Features : 1 ) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11 ( some US13/UK12 ) Size for women US5-8/102 ) Packing : 1pr/box , 12prs/carton , 12prs/style/color ( original box and retro card ) 3 ) Many designs and colors available4 ) Delivery can be prompt shipping5 ) We accept paypal + + + aaa quality .
        You can free mix any size any style of you best like , You will find what your like , Hi friend , we are a prefession online store , you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photosOUR WEBSITE :                                                         YAHOO : shoppertrade @ yahoo.com.cn                                                                 MSN : shoppertrade @ hotmail.com                                                                             Http : //www.tntshoes.com</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Http://www.tntshoes.com
    You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like, Don't hesitate to contact us!The shoes We can supply all kinds of shoes with different styles, You will find what your like.Features:1) Size for men US8-12 UK7-11(some US13/UK12)Size for women US5-8/102) Packing: 1pr/box, 12prs/carton, 12prs/style/color(original box and retro card)3) Many designs and colors available4) Delivery can be prompt shipping5) We accept paypal +++aaa quality .
        You can free mix any size any style of you best like, You will find what your like,    Hi friend, we are a prefession online store, you can see more photos and price in our website which is show in the photosOUR WEBSITE:
                                                        YAHOO:shoppertrade@yahoo.com.cn
                                                                MSN:shoppertrade@hotmail.com
                                                                            Http://www.tntshoes.com</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854345</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>r7</author>
	<datestamp>1256320260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Flamebait</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>If MS ever adopted ZFS, they'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.</p></div><p>And the same would occur if ZFS ever went GPL i.e., RMS would fork it and introduce meaningless incompatibilities, as was done with make, pgp, sort, and numerous other utilities.  It's the same reason Postifx, Apache, MPL, and ISC licenses were worded the way they are.</p><p>So let Apple develop their own ZFS-alike.  It's unlikely to be adopted outside of Apple, and unlikely to influence any other filesystem's developer or end-user momentum.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>If MS ever adopted ZFS , they 'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.And the same would occur if ZFS ever went GPL i.e. , RMS would fork it and introduce meaningless incompatibilities , as was done with make , pgp , sort , and numerous other utilities .
It 's the same reason Postifx , Apache , MPL , and ISC licenses were worded the way they are.So let Apple develop their own ZFS-alike .
It 's unlikely to be adopted outside of Apple , and unlikely to influence any other filesystem 's developer or end-user momentum .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If MS ever adopted ZFS, they'd change a bunch of things just to make it intentionally incompatible.And the same would occur if ZFS ever went GPL i.e., RMS would fork it and introduce meaningless incompatibilities, as was done with make, pgp, sort, and numerous other utilities.
It's the same reason Postifx, Apache, MPL, and ISC licenses were worded the way they are.So let Apple develop their own ZFS-alike.
It's unlikely to be adopted outside of Apple, and unlikely to influence any other filesystem's developer or end-user momentum.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853423</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>BrentH</author>
	<datestamp>1256305920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext>"The flip side is that I've heard that Apple's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system. And, perhaps not coincidentally, they're hiring." from <a href="http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs" title="daringfireball.net">http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs</a> [daringfireball.net] <br> <br>
This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system. When it was clear ZFS wasn't coming to Linux, those guys got btrfs going, now Apple is doing their own, while ZFS obviously will stay around too. Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this, and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will. This nonsense isnt helping, and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows. Can Oracle go over Sun's head on this or Sun==Oracle?</htmltext>
<tokenext>" The flip side is that I 've heard that Apple 's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system .
And , perhaps not coincidentally , they 're hiring .
" from http : //daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs [ daringfireball.net ] This is pretty shitty because it 'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system .
When it was clear ZFS was n't coming to Linux , those guys got btrfs going , now Apple is doing their own , while ZFS obviously will stay around too .
Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this , and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will .
This nonsense isnt helping , and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that 'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows .
Can Oracle go over Sun 's head on this or Sun = = Oracle ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>"The flip side is that I've heard that Apple's file systems team is full steam ahead on their own next-generation file system.
And, perhaps not coincidentally, they're hiring.
" from http://daringfireball.net/linked/2009/10/23/zfs [daringfireball.net]  
This is pretty shitty because it'll fragment the momentum ZFS had in being the next-gen ubiquitous file system.
When it was clear ZFS wasn't coming to Linux, those guys got btrfs going, now Apple is doing their own, while ZFS obviously will stay around too.
Microsoft obviously wasnt on board for any of this, and without the momentum behind ZFS it never will.
This nonsense isnt helping, and I think the best Oracle could do it release it under all the licenses that'll get it into OSX/Linux and perhaps even Windows.
Can Oracle go over Sun's head on this or Sun==Oracle?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853951</id>
	<title>Re:Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>Junior J. Junior III</author>
	<datestamp>1256314440000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>HAMMER FS... instead of a Permission Denied error when you don't have rights to a file, you get a U Can't Touch This error.</htmltext>
<tokenext>HAMMER FS... instead of a Permission Denied error when you do n't have rights to a file , you get a U Ca n't Touch This error .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>HAMMER FS... instead of a Permission Denied error when you don't have rights to a file, you get a U Can't Touch This error.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853537</id>
	<title>Schwatz on the netapp lawsuit.. ala 2007</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308020000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>You may want to check out SUNs ceo's comments on the netapp issues...

This dates all the way back to 2007.  From the comments above this appeared to be something new.

<a href="http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting\_from\_a\_troll" title="sun.com" rel="nofollow">http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting\_from\_a\_troll</a> [sun.com]</htmltext>
<tokenext>You may want to check out SUNs ceo 's comments on the netapp issues.. . This dates all the way back to 2007 .
From the comments above this appeared to be something new .
http : //blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting \ _from \ _a \ _troll [ sun.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You may want to check out SUNs ceo's comments on the netapp issues...

This dates all the way back to 2007.
From the comments above this appeared to be something new.
http://blogs.sun.com/jonathan/entry/harvesting\_from\_a\_troll [sun.com]</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381</id>
	<title>Maybe they should look at HAMMER FS</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256306280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMMER" title="wikipedia.org">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMMER</a> [wikipedia.org]</p><p>Should be under a suitable license for their usage.  It's written for DragonflyBSD which has a funny filesystem driver interface but AIUI the developer had ports to other OSes in mind, so it should still be doable.  It can do cheap filesystem snapshots so it would support Time Machine-style operation well.  The question is whether it could be adapted to fit Apple's uses well enough.  Given one of the linked articles suggests Apple are hiring FS developers my guess would be that they've decided they'd rather build a ground-up filesystem that supports all the (slightly odd set of) features MacOS X wants.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMMER [ wikipedia.org ] Should be under a suitable license for their usage .
It 's written for DragonflyBSD which has a funny filesystem driver interface but AIUI the developer had ports to other OSes in mind , so it should still be doable .
It can do cheap filesystem snapshots so it would support Time Machine-style operation well .
The question is whether it could be adapted to fit Apple 's uses well enough .
Given one of the linked articles suggests Apple are hiring FS developers my guess would be that they 've decided they 'd rather build a ground-up filesystem that supports all the ( slightly odd set of ) features MacOS X wants .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMMER [wikipedia.org]Should be under a suitable license for their usage.
It's written for DragonflyBSD which has a funny filesystem driver interface but AIUI the developer had ports to other OSes in mind, so it should still be doable.
It can do cheap filesystem snapshots so it would support Time Machine-style operation well.
The question is whether it could be adapted to fit Apple's uses well enough.
Given one of the linked articles suggests Apple are hiring FS developers my guess would be that they've decided they'd rather build a ground-up filesystem that supports all the (slightly odd set of) features MacOS X wants.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854729</id>
	<title>None of the lead engineers have left Sun.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256327520000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You are wrong about "several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...".</p><p>How do I know this?</p><p>A simple grep on the source code commit history, joined with the password database in NIS tells me this.</p><p>None of the lead engineers from the ZFS project have left Sun. Yes people who have made changes are no longer there, but those people are NOT the lead engineers of ZFS.</p><p>I therefore challenge you to provide any evidence to back up your claim.</p><p>So, if you have been untruthful about one aspect of your comment, then it is likely that other "facts" are incorrect as well.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You are wrong about " several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ... " .How do I know this ? A simple grep on the source code commit history , joined with the password database in NIS tells me this.None of the lead engineers from the ZFS project have left Sun .
Yes people who have made changes are no longer there , but those people are NOT the lead engineers of ZFS.I therefore challenge you to provide any evidence to back up your claim.So , if you have been untruthful about one aspect of your comment , then it is likely that other " facts " are incorrect as well .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You are wrong about "several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ...".How do I know this?A simple grep on the source code commit history, joined with the password database in NIS tells me this.None of the lead engineers from the ZFS project have left Sun.
Yes people who have made changes are no longer there, but those people are NOT the lead engineers of ZFS.I therefore challenge you to provide any evidence to back up your claim.So, if you have been untruthful about one aspect of your comment, then it is likely that other "facts" are incorrect as well.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860971</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256390040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>ZFS: so good, its advocates are <i>smugger</i> than Mac users.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>ZFS : so good , its advocates are smugger than Mac users .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>ZFS: so good, its advocates are smugger than Mac users.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856591</id>
	<title>Software patents FTW</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256398920000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext>Looks like another great example of how software patents spur innovation and improve the lives of the general public!</htmltext>
<tokenext>Looks like another great example of how software patents spur innovation and improve the lives of the general public !</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Looks like another great example of how software patents spur innovation and improve the lives of the general public!</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853499</id>
	<title>It's not just a filesystem</title>
	<author>fnj</author>
	<datestamp>1256307540000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Yes, I realize it contains the letters "FS", but ZFS is not just a filesystem.  It incorporates a lot more than that.  That's one of the reasons it's really hard to integrate into an OS, given the architecture of most OS's.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Yes , I realize it contains the letters " FS " , but ZFS is not just a filesystem .
It incorporates a lot more than that .
That 's one of the reasons it 's really hard to integrate into an OS , given the architecture of most OS 's .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Yes, I realize it contains the letters "FS", but ZFS is not just a filesystem.
It incorporates a lot more than that.
That's one of the reasons it's really hard to integrate into an OS, given the architecture of most OS's.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853589</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256308680000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I know you're only joking, but I'm actually using zfs on a sun cluster right now... whatever technical merits it might possess are lost on me because when I type in "df -h" and it doesn't report anything meaningful -- it always shows 2 GB free however much of my 1 TB disk quota I happen to be using.  To get meaningful disk usage, you have to type in "df -h<nobr> <wbr></nobr>.".  While it's certainly trivial to do that, I find that having to directly specify the directory in order to get meaningful disk usage data is just weird.<br> <br>My experience with zfs has been tepid at best, it's not terrible.  I won't miss not having it though.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I know you 're only joking , but I 'm actually using zfs on a sun cluster right now... whatever technical merits it might possess are lost on me because when I type in " df -h " and it does n't report anything meaningful -- it always shows 2 GB free however much of my 1 TB disk quota I happen to be using .
To get meaningful disk usage , you have to type in " df -h . " .
While it 's certainly trivial to do that , I find that having to directly specify the directory in order to get meaningful disk usage data is just weird .
My experience with zfs has been tepid at best , it 's not terrible .
I wo n't miss not having it though .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I know you're only joking, but I'm actually using zfs on a sun cluster right now... whatever technical merits it might possess are lost on me because when I type in "df -h" and it doesn't report anything meaningful -- it always shows 2 GB free however much of my 1 TB disk quota I happen to be using.
To get meaningful disk usage, you have to type in "df -h .".
While it's certainly trivial to do that, I find that having to directly specify the directory in order to get meaningful disk usage data is just weird.
My experience with zfs has been tepid at best, it's not terrible.
I won't miss not having it though.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853639</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309340000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing. Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of "hell, we could do it ourselves for that".</p></div><p>Apple took DTrace with its CDDL license, why couldn't they just take ZFS?</p><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS. I'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system, probably in the 10.7 timeframe.</p></div><p>Apple has a lot of smart people, and Sun is known for their engineering (if not their marketing) so I'm sure they gained more, but part of me is kind of sad that they're re-inventing the wheel. While nothing is perfect, ZFS has some great features and functionality now, with more on the way (de-dupe, encryption, etc.). It's too bad that an agreement couldn't be reached.</p><p>I'm hoping that as Apple integrates FreeBSD code like it has in the past, it will also take in the work done on ZFS. FreeBSD 7.x has ZFS in a "preview" fashion, and the upcoming 8.0 has it marked as "production ready".</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>The long and short of it was , Apple and Sun could n't come to terms on the licensing .
Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of " hell , we could do it ourselves for that " .Apple took DTrace with its CDDL license , why could n't they just take ZFS ? Apple 's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ( who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down ) , and the architect of the BeFS .
I 'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system , probably in the 10.7 timeframe.Apple has a lot of smart people , and Sun is known for their engineering ( if not their marketing ) so I 'm sure they gained more , but part of me is kind of sad that they 're re-inventing the wheel .
While nothing is perfect , ZFS has some great features and functionality now , with more on the way ( de-dupe , encryption , etc. ) .
It 's too bad that an agreement could n't be reached.I 'm hoping that as Apple integrates FreeBSD code like it has in the past , it will also take in the work done on ZFS .
FreeBSD 7.x has ZFS in a " preview " fashion , and the upcoming 8.0 has it marked as " production ready " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The long and short of it was, Apple and Sun couldn't come to terms on the licensing.
Sun wanted a lot of money for giving it to Apple under different terms and the amount they wanted was in the range of "hell, we could do it ourselves for that".Apple took DTrace with its CDDL license, why couldn't they just take ZFS?Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.
I'm expecting Apple to do their own next-generation file system, probably in the 10.7 timeframe.Apple has a lot of smart people, and Sun is known for their engineering (if not their marketing) so I'm sure they gained more, but part of me is kind of sad that they're re-inventing the wheel.
While nothing is perfect, ZFS has some great features and functionality now, with more on the way (de-dupe, encryption, etc.).
It's too bad that an agreement couldn't be reached.I'm hoping that as Apple integrates FreeBSD code like it has in the past, it will also take in the work done on ZFS.
FreeBSD 7.x has ZFS in a "preview" fashion, and the upcoming 8.0 has it marked as "production ready".
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853835</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256312280000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>You have gravely underestimated the capacity for lawyers and bean counters to fuck up a great idea.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>You have gravely underestimated the capacity for lawyers and bean counters to fuck up a great idea .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>You have gravely underestimated the capacity for lawyers and bean counters to fuck up a great idea.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866039</id>
	<title>Jeff Bonwick claims it was a licensing issue</title>
	<author>Guy Harris</author>
	<datestamp>1256498820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>In <a href="http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html" title="opensolaris.org">a message to the zfs-discuss list</a> [opensolaris.org], he says that "the essence of [the issue]" was that Apple and Sun couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms on a license.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>In a message to the zfs-discuss list [ opensolaris.org ] , he says that " the essence of [ the issue ] " was that Apple and Sun could n't come to mutually agreeable terms on a license .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>In a message to the zfs-discuss list [opensolaris.org], he says that "the essence of [the issue]" was that Apple and Sun couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms on a license.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855361</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256385300000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><i>Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation, likely.</i></p><p>Why can't Oracle just change the ZFS license?  They will own the code.</p><p><i>Once it is ready, I expect and hope a windows driver will surface, allowing it to be a more universal file format.</i></p><p>Linux file systems have always been superior to Windows file systems, yet they have never been adopted on Windows.  Why should that change now.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation , likely.Why ca n't Oracle just change the ZFS license ?
They will own the code.Once it is ready , I expect and hope a windows driver will surface , allowing it to be a more universal file format.Linux file systems have always been superior to Windows file systems , yet they have never been adopted on Windows .
Why should that change now .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Of course licensing issues would necessitate a clean-room implementation, likely.Why can't Oracle just change the ZFS license?
They will own the code.Once it is ready, I expect and hope a windows driver will surface, allowing it to be a more universal file format.Linux file systems have always been superior to Windows file systems, yet they have never been adopted on Windows.
Why should that change now.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854709</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854353</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>reidconti</author>
	<datestamp>1256320380000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been <b>too much of a big ask to</b> integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop. They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just wasn't possible.</p></div><p>Why say in 4 words what can be said, while nounning a verb, in 6?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been too much of a big ask to integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop .
They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just was n't possible.Why say in 4 words what can be said , while nounning a verb , in 6 ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Given the pretty extensive functionality and plumbing of ZFS its probably been too much of a big ask to integrate a filesystem like that into a desktop.
They might well have come to the conclusion that ZFS was simply complete overkill on a desktop and that it just wasn't possible.Why say in 4 words what can be said, while nounning a verb, in 6?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279</id>
	<title>Re:The Reason is Probably Technical</title>
	<author>4iedBandit</author>
	<datestamp>1256305200000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I doubt that it's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened...</p></div><p>I've dealt with people in Sun who were close to ZFS and who were also excited to have it in Mac OS.  It wasn't pulled because it wasn't technically ready.</p><p>ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to. I've never felt compelled by any file system.  Use whatever is there or whatever my peers are comfortable with.  ZFS is the first file system that's compelling enough to make me take a stand.  I use it on servers daily at work, and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home.  Bit rot is a very real problem.  ZFS handles it automagically.  And if you think your mirror or your raid 5 array has you protected, you are dead wrong.  Those handle failure at the hardware level.  What handles failure at the data level?  Nothing.  Hope you make backups of your arrays.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I doubt that it 's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened...I 've dealt with people in Sun who were close to ZFS and who were also excited to have it in Mac OS .
It was n't pulled because it was n't technically ready.ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to .
I 've never felt compelled by any file system .
Use whatever is there or whatever my peers are comfortable with .
ZFS is the first file system that 's compelling enough to make me take a stand .
I use it on servers daily at work , and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home .
Bit rot is a very real problem .
ZFS handles it automagically .
And if you think your mirror or your raid 5 array has you protected , you are dead wrong .
Those handle failure at the hardware level .
What handles failure at the data level ?
Nothing. Hope you make backups of your arrays .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I doubt that it's a legal issue as the primary reason that this has happened...I've dealt with people in Sun who were close to ZFS and who were also excited to have it in Mac OS.
It wasn't pulled because it wasn't technically ready.ZFS is the next generation file system that all others will have to live up to.
I've never felt compelled by any file system.
Use whatever is there or whatever my peers are comfortable with.
ZFS is the first file system that's compelling enough to make me take a stand.
I use it on servers daily at work, and I was looking forward to having it on my Macs at home.
Bit rot is a very real problem.
ZFS handles it automagically.
And if you think your mirror or your raid 5 array has you protected, you are dead wrong.
Those handle failure at the hardware level.
What handles failure at the data level?
Nothing.  Hope you make backups of your arrays.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853115</id>
	<title>Re:God forbid...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256303580000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Funny</modclass>
	<modscore>5</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My sense of entitlement demands that everyone hand everything to me on a silver platter as well!  I shouldn't be required to click on a link, much less do a Google search.  You and I are in agreement.  BTW, you owe me for that.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My sense of entitlement demands that everyone hand everything to me on a silver platter as well !
I should n't be required to click on a link , much less do a Google search .
You and I are in agreement .
BTW , you owe me for that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My sense of entitlement demands that everyone hand everything to me on a silver platter as well!
I shouldn't be required to click on a link, much less do a Google search.
You and I are in agreement.
BTW, you owe me for that.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.</p></div><p>If this (potentially) verifiable information is accurate, that along with the claim of sources are two things missing from most if not all of the other AC speculation.  The scenario is plausible and credible, so it is reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence to lend more weight to the AC above.</p><p>How much more weight will of course vary amongst individuals, but it seems the mods have deemed it worthy.  Wisdom of crowds and all that.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Apple 's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project ( who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down ) , and the architect of the BeFS.If this ( potentially ) verifiable information is accurate , that along with the claim of sources are two things missing from most if not all of the other AC speculation .
The scenario is plausible and credible , so it is reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence to lend more weight to the AC above.How much more weight will of course vary amongst individuals , but it seems the mods have deemed it worthy .
Wisdom of crowds and all that .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Apple's CoreOS team includes several of the lead engineers from the ZFS project (who fled the remnants of Sun in the Schwartz melt-down), and the architect of the BeFS.If this (potentially) verifiable information is accurate, that along with the claim of sources are two things missing from most if not all of the other AC speculation.
The scenario is plausible and credible, so it is reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence to lend more weight to the AC above.How much more weight will of course vary amongst individuals, but it seems the mods have deemed it worthy.
Wisdom of crowds and all that.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29877407</id>
	<title>The important points</title>
	<author>FreekyGeek</author>
	<datestamp>1256551560000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Y'all seem to be forgetting a couple very important points.  First, ZFS is here.  Now.  In production.  Officially supported.  It had years and years of development and testing, and has been in Solaris 10 for years after that.  It's solid and it's here and it works great.  Btrfs, on the other hand, whether you think it's technically better or technically worse, is still *YEARS* away from any kind of stable release.  It doesn't even have RAID 5 yet, fer chrissakes.  Even if it were 100\% feature complete today, it would still be *years* before I or anyone else would even dream of using it in production.</p><p>Say what you want about Sun, their engineering is top notch.  They put ZFS through hell while testing it, and it's been out for some time now.  Btrfs has just barely reach infancy.</p><p>Second, one of the things I consider *most* important about ZFS is that it's EASY TO USE.  I always had a hell of a time trying to understand all the million complex concepts and commands in Veritas and other volume managers.  After a lonmg time as a sysadmin I still have trouble with it.  You know what?  I learned ZFS in about twenty minutes.  The way they're organized and written the commands makes it so dead easy to use it amazing.  I can do with *one* ZFS command what would have taken an hour of head-scratching and manual-referencing with Veritas.</p><p>Btrfs, on the other hand, despite the assertion in the mission statement that usability is a main goal, shows every sign of becoming yet another filesystems where doing anything involves 15 different commands to do different things, each with 22 bizarre options.  The scanty "man pages" that exist are nearly impossible to find (not on the btrfs web site) and when you do finally track down something like a command syntax or parameter reference, it appears that btrfs commands are going to be just as - if not more - incredibly complex and intimidating as Veritas.</p><p>If the btrfs project people want folks to adopt that filesystem rapidly and enthusiastically, they need to *completely* rewrite the interface, take a page from ZFS, make it one or two command with a simple, english-like syntax.  hell, since ZFS is sort-of open sourced, they could probably steal the entire ZFS syntax verbatim - legally.  The code itself may be under some kind of license, but I doubt anyone could get sued for using the same commands.  They're just words, and I don't think something released under any kind of open source license could claim copyright violation over non-code text.  If btrfs really wants to grow, thrive, and be accepted, they have to pay a LOT more attention to the usability issue.  One of the huge reasons so many people like ZFS so much, including myself, is it's something that's extremely powerful on one hand but I can learn to use rapidly and become an expert on in no time.  The syntx is so english-like it's almost like talking to another person.</p><p>Oh, BTW - just bite the bullet and call it 'BFS".  "btrfs" is freaking awkward and stupid.  It rolls off the tongue as easily as the abomination "GNU/Linux".</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Y'all seem to be forgetting a couple very important points .
First , ZFS is here .
Now. In production .
Officially supported .
It had years and years of development and testing , and has been in Solaris 10 for years after that .
It 's solid and it 's here and it works great .
Btrfs , on the other hand , whether you think it 's technically better or technically worse , is still * YEARS * away from any kind of stable release .
It does n't even have RAID 5 yet , fer chrissakes .
Even if it were 100 \ % feature complete today , it would still be * years * before I or anyone else would even dream of using it in production.Say what you want about Sun , their engineering is top notch .
They put ZFS through hell while testing it , and it 's been out for some time now .
Btrfs has just barely reach infancy.Second , one of the things I consider * most * important about ZFS is that it 's EASY TO USE .
I always had a hell of a time trying to understand all the million complex concepts and commands in Veritas and other volume managers .
After a lonmg time as a sysadmin I still have trouble with it .
You know what ?
I learned ZFS in about twenty minutes .
The way they 're organized and written the commands makes it so dead easy to use it amazing .
I can do with * one * ZFS command what would have taken an hour of head-scratching and manual-referencing with Veritas.Btrfs , on the other hand , despite the assertion in the mission statement that usability is a main goal , shows every sign of becoming yet another filesystems where doing anything involves 15 different commands to do different things , each with 22 bizarre options .
The scanty " man pages " that exist are nearly impossible to find ( not on the btrfs web site ) and when you do finally track down something like a command syntax or parameter reference , it appears that btrfs commands are going to be just as - if not more - incredibly complex and intimidating as Veritas.If the btrfs project people want folks to adopt that filesystem rapidly and enthusiastically , they need to * completely * rewrite the interface , take a page from ZFS , make it one or two command with a simple , english-like syntax .
hell , since ZFS is sort-of open sourced , they could probably steal the entire ZFS syntax verbatim - legally .
The code itself may be under some kind of license , but I doubt anyone could get sued for using the same commands .
They 're just words , and I do n't think something released under any kind of open source license could claim copyright violation over non-code text .
If btrfs really wants to grow , thrive , and be accepted , they have to pay a LOT more attention to the usability issue .
One of the huge reasons so many people like ZFS so much , including myself , is it 's something that 's extremely powerful on one hand but I can learn to use rapidly and become an expert on in no time .
The syntx is so english-like it 's almost like talking to another person.Oh , BTW - just bite the bullet and call it 'BFS " .
" btrfs " is freaking awkward and stupid .
It rolls off the tongue as easily as the abomination " GNU/Linux " .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Y'all seem to be forgetting a couple very important points.
First, ZFS is here.
Now.  In production.
Officially supported.
It had years and years of development and testing, and has been in Solaris 10 for years after that.
It's solid and it's here and it works great.
Btrfs, on the other hand, whether you think it's technically better or technically worse, is still *YEARS* away from any kind of stable release.
It doesn't even have RAID 5 yet, fer chrissakes.
Even if it were 100\% feature complete today, it would still be *years* before I or anyone else would even dream of using it in production.Say what you want about Sun, their engineering is top notch.
They put ZFS through hell while testing it, and it's been out for some time now.
Btrfs has just barely reach infancy.Second, one of the things I consider *most* important about ZFS is that it's EASY TO USE.
I always had a hell of a time trying to understand all the million complex concepts and commands in Veritas and other volume managers.
After a lonmg time as a sysadmin I still have trouble with it.
You know what?
I learned ZFS in about twenty minutes.
The way they're organized and written the commands makes it so dead easy to use it amazing.
I can do with *one* ZFS command what would have taken an hour of head-scratching and manual-referencing with Veritas.Btrfs, on the other hand, despite the assertion in the mission statement that usability is a main goal, shows every sign of becoming yet another filesystems where doing anything involves 15 different commands to do different things, each with 22 bizarre options.
The scanty "man pages" that exist are nearly impossible to find (not on the btrfs web site) and when you do finally track down something like a command syntax or parameter reference, it appears that btrfs commands are going to be just as - if not more - incredibly complex and intimidating as Veritas.If the btrfs project people want folks to adopt that filesystem rapidly and enthusiastically, they need to *completely* rewrite the interface, take a page from ZFS, make it one or two command with a simple, english-like syntax.
hell, since ZFS is sort-of open sourced, they could probably steal the entire ZFS syntax verbatim - legally.
The code itself may be under some kind of license, but I doubt anyone could get sued for using the same commands.
They're just words, and I don't think something released under any kind of open source license could claim copyright violation over non-code text.
If btrfs really wants to grow, thrive, and be accepted, they have to pay a LOT more attention to the usability issue.
One of the huge reasons so many people like ZFS so much, including myself, is it's something that's extremely powerful on one hand but I can learn to use rapidly and become an expert on in no time.
The syntx is so english-like it's almost like talking to another person.Oh, BTW - just bite the bullet and call it 'BFS".
"btrfs" is freaking awkward and stupid.
It rolls off the tongue as easily as the abomination "GNU/Linux".</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29869739</id>
	<title>wzz</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256587740000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Owen <a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aion4gold.com]<br><a href="http://www.metin2sale.com/" title="metin2sale.com" rel="nofollow">metin2 yang</a> [metin2sale.com] will be<br><a href="http://www.itemchannel.com/" title="itemchannel.com" rel="nofollow">wow gold cheap</a> [itemchannel.com]<br><a href="http://www.aionshopping.com/" title="aionshopping.com" rel="nofollow">aion gold</a> [aionshopping.com] possible<br><a href="http://www.vipwarhammergold.com/" title="vipwarhammergold.com" rel="nofollow">world of warcraft gold</a> [vipwarhammergold.com] to<br><a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">aion4gold</a> [aion4gold.com] return to<br><a href="http://www.aion4gold.com/" title="aion4gold.com" rel="nofollow">cheap aion gold</a> [aion4gold.com] the national<br>
&nbsp; team <a href="http://www.cheapaion.com/" title="cheapaion.com" rel="nofollow">Aion Kina</a> [cheapaion.com]</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Owen aion gold [ aion4gold.com ] metin2 yang [ metin2sale.com ] will bewow gold cheap [ itemchannel.com ] aion gold [ aionshopping.com ] possibleworld of warcraft gold [ vipwarhammergold.com ] toaion4gold [ aion4gold.com ] return tocheap aion gold [ aion4gold.com ] the national   team Aion Kina [ cheapaion.com ]</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Owen aion gold [aion4gold.com]metin2 yang [metin2sale.com] will bewow gold cheap [itemchannel.com]aion gold [aionshopping.com] possibleworld of warcraft gold [vipwarhammergold.com] toaion4gold [aion4gold.com] return tocheap aion gold [aion4gold.com] the national
  team Aion Kina [cheapaion.com]</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854635</id>
	<title>Fsck</title>
	<author>tsa</author>
	<datestamp>1256326080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>My two rabbits have been checking their filesystems all afternoon yesterday.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>My two rabbits have been checking their filesystems all afternoon yesterday .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>My two rabbits have been checking their filesystems all afternoon yesterday.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29871277</id>
	<title>Not for desktops?</title>
	<author>jotaeleemeese</author>
	<datestamp>1256565600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Backups become immensely simpler with ZFS.</p><p>Any desktop user with tons of media files would appreciate that.</p><p>The GNOME file manager in Solaris is being integrated with ZFS features, so snapshots become a point and click task.</p><p>Backup your snapshots (incremental backups for all practical means) and you will be in business without needing to understand complex backup policies.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Backups become immensely simpler with ZFS.Any desktop user with tons of media files would appreciate that.The GNOME file manager in Solaris is being integrated with ZFS features , so snapshots become a point and click task.Backup your snapshots ( incremental backups for all practical means ) and you will be in business without needing to understand complex backup policies .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Backups become immensely simpler with ZFS.Any desktop user with tons of media files would appreciate that.The GNOME file manager in Solaris is being integrated with ZFS features, so snapshots become a point and click task.Backup your snapshots (incremental backups for all practical means) and you will be in business without needing to understand complex backup policies.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343</id>
	<title>ZFS is overhyped and not a good fit for desktop OS</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256320260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>If you take a look at look at the features and limitations of ZFS: <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Limitations" title="wikipedia.org" rel="nofollow">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Limitations</a> [wikipedia.org]
<p>
You can see that it has missing functionality such as encryption support and it does not seem to be a good fit for systems with removable media. It is also counterintuitive for the average user to grasp the concept that drives are part of a "pool". Finally, it is prone to fragmentation.
</p><p>
Given all of the problems and lack of completeness, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind would advocate using ZFS for any system at the time. I think that ZFS, should it continue to be developed, could be a useful FS for a SAN device but I don't see it as ever being a good fit for a desktop OS.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>If you take a look at look at the features and limitations of ZFS : http : //en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS # Limitations [ wikipedia.org ] You can see that it has missing functionality such as encryption support and it does not seem to be a good fit for systems with removable media .
It is also counterintuitive for the average user to grasp the concept that drives are part of a " pool " .
Finally , it is prone to fragmentation .
Given all of the problems and lack of completeness , I can not understand how anyone in their right mind would advocate using ZFS for any system at the time .
I think that ZFS , should it continue to be developed , could be a useful FS for a SAN device but I do n't see it as ever being a good fit for a desktop OS .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>If you take a look at look at the features and limitations of ZFS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Limitations [wikipedia.org]

You can see that it has missing functionality such as encryption support and it does not seem to be a good fit for systems with removable media.
It is also counterintuitive for the average user to grasp the concept that drives are part of a "pool".
Finally, it is prone to fragmentation.
Given all of the problems and lack of completeness, I cannot understand how anyone in their right mind would advocate using ZFS for any system at the time.
I think that ZFS, should it continue to be developed, could be a useful FS for a SAN device but I don't see it as ever being a good fit for a desktop OS.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335</id>
	<title>Too bad, ZFS has some nice features</title>
	<author>mbessey</author>
	<datestamp>1256305860000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Interestin</modclass>
	<modscore>3</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Leaving aside all the crazy storage pool stuff (great for servers, not necessarily that useful for desktops), there are some interesting features in ZFS that I hope make their way into Mac OS X in some filesystem.</p><p>Snapshots and Copy-On-Write filesystem clones seem like a great way to improve the Time Machine backup feature, and would make it easy for applications to provide backup-on-save very efficiently.</p><p>The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people. I don't think the increased filesystem limits (number of files, size of files) would matter for most folks.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Leaving aside all the crazy storage pool stuff ( great for servers , not necessarily that useful for desktops ) , there are some interesting features in ZFS that I hope make their way into Mac OS X in some filesystem.Snapshots and Copy-On-Write filesystem clones seem like a great way to improve the Time Machine backup feature , and would make it easy for applications to provide backup-on-save very efficiently.The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people .
I do n't think the increased filesystem limits ( number of files , size of files ) would matter for most folks .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Leaving aside all the crazy storage pool stuff (great for servers, not necessarily that useful for desktops), there are some interesting features in ZFS that I hope make their way into Mac OS X in some filesystem.Snapshots and Copy-On-Write filesystem clones seem like a great way to improve the Time Machine backup feature, and would make it easy for applications to provide backup-on-save very efficiently.The compression and encryption features would likely be useful for some people.
I don't think the increased filesystem limits (number of files, size of files) would matter for most folks.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853439</id>
	<title>Re:With SSDs, who needs it?</title>
	<author>Mprx</author>
	<datestamp>1256306820000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>The new 120Hz LCDs aren't bad. I've been using a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 CRT for years, but I recently switched to a ViewSonic VX2268wm LCD. There's still visible sample and hold blurring, but unlike on a 60Hz LCD you only notice it when you're actively looking for it (assuming your frame rate doesn't drop below 120fps). Black level and color accuracy are poor as you'd expect from a TN panel, but I find motion quality much more important. No noticeable input lag. It's easily the best LCD I've used, and the convenience of an LCD (much shorter warmup time, small size, perfect geometry linearity, lower power consumption) outweighs the slight image quality/motion quality loss as compared to a CRT. Being able to run 120Hz at full resolution is also useful, because before I had to switch modes for gaming/movies because my CRT only did 100Hz at the highest usable resolution.

I don't trust SSDs for long term reliability, but the performance boost is too big to ignore. I'm using a OCZ Vertex in combination with mechanical drives.</htmltext>
<tokenext>The new 120Hz LCDs are n't bad .
I 've been using a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 CRT for years , but I recently switched to a ViewSonic VX2268wm LCD .
There 's still visible sample and hold blurring , but unlike on a 60Hz LCD you only notice it when you 're actively looking for it ( assuming your frame rate does n't drop below 120fps ) .
Black level and color accuracy are poor as you 'd expect from a TN panel , but I find motion quality much more important .
No noticeable input lag .
It 's easily the best LCD I 've used , and the convenience of an LCD ( much shorter warmup time , small size , perfect geometry linearity , lower power consumption ) outweighs the slight image quality/motion quality loss as compared to a CRT .
Being able to run 120Hz at full resolution is also useful , because before I had to switch modes for gaming/movies because my CRT only did 100Hz at the highest usable resolution .
I do n't trust SSDs for long term reliability , but the performance boost is too big to ignore .
I 'm using a OCZ Vertex in combination with mechanical drives .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>The new 120Hz LCDs aren't bad.
I've been using a Iiyama Vision Master Pro 454 CRT for years, but I recently switched to a ViewSonic VX2268wm LCD.
There's still visible sample and hold blurring, but unlike on a 60Hz LCD you only notice it when you're actively looking for it (assuming your frame rate doesn't drop below 120fps).
Black level and color accuracy are poor as you'd expect from a TN panel, but I find motion quality much more important.
No noticeable input lag.
It's easily the best LCD I've used, and the convenience of an LCD (much shorter warmup time, small size, perfect geometry linearity, lower power consumption) outweighs the slight image quality/motion quality loss as compared to a CRT.
Being able to run 120Hz at full resolution is also useful, because before I had to switch modes for gaming/movies because my CRT only did 100Hz at the highest usable resolution.
I don't trust SSDs for long term reliability, but the performance boost is too big to ignore.
I'm using a OCZ Vertex in combination with mechanical drives.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856811</id>
	<title>I don't think it's licensing.</title>
	<author>toby</author>
	<datestamp>1256401080000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>Existence of <a href="http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs/" title="sun.com">the NetApp/Sun suit,</a> [sun.com] while most likely a loss for NetApp, is IMHO enough to prevent Apple betting the farm on ZFS in the heart of OS X.</htmltext>
<tokenext>Existence of the NetApp/Sun suit , [ sun.com ] while most likely a loss for NetApp , is IMHO enough to prevent Apple betting the farm on ZFS in the heart of OS X .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Existence of the NetApp/Sun suit, [sun.com] while most likely a loss for NetApp, is IMHO enough to prevent Apple betting the farm on ZFS in the heart of OS X.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221</id>
	<title>Another nextgen FS on the way?  Hmmm.</title>
	<author>Lemming Mark</author>
	<datestamp>1256304600000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Insightful</modclass>
	<modscore>4</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>Interesting - we're chugging happily along in Linux / Windows / Mac / Unix land having a load of competing filesystems where all the popular ones have *roughly* similar capabilities.  Then ZFS appears in OpenSolaris and filesystem design becomes cool again.  Everyone starts either porting ZFS or making filesystems with similar features<nobr> <wbr></nobr>...  Now a major player that actually *had* ported ZFS (somewhat) is seemingly deciding to go it alone.  It seems as though the next-gen filesystem space is also going to have a variety of competing filesystems.</p><p>I generally think this is a good thing, lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Interesting - we 're chugging happily along in Linux / Windows / Mac / Unix land having a load of competing filesystems where all the popular ones have * roughly * similar capabilities .
Then ZFS appears in OpenSolaris and filesystem design becomes cool again .
Everyone starts either porting ZFS or making filesystems with similar features ... Now a major player that actually * had * ported ZFS ( somewhat ) is seemingly deciding to go it alone .
It seems as though the next-gen filesystem space is also going to have a variety of competing filesystems.I generally think this is a good thing , lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>Interesting - we're chugging happily along in Linux / Windows / Mac / Unix land having a load of competing filesystems where all the popular ones have *roughly* similar capabilities.
Then ZFS appears in OpenSolaris and filesystem design becomes cool again.
Everyone starts either porting ZFS or making filesystems with similar features ...  Now a major player that actually *had* ported ZFS (somewhat) is seemingly deciding to go it alone.
It seems as though the next-gen filesystem space is also going to have a variety of competing filesystems.I generally think this is a good thing, lets just hope that a reasonable degree of interoperability becomes possible anyway.</sentencetext>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858827</id>
	<title>Re:Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256415960000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>I <a href="http://twitter.com/qu1j0t3/status/3723350224" title="twitter.com" rel="nofollow">predicted</a> [twitter.com] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept.<br><a href="http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-macos/msg/1a9895953e30bc54" title="google.com" rel="nofollow">NIH Syndrome</a> [google.com] does seem the most likely explanation. Which is disappointing. Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun.</p></div><p>Yes, and I predict that whenever Slashdot posts a ZFS article, you can be relied upon to make an entirely inane and ill-informed comment. Do I get a prize?</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predicted [ twitter.com ] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept.NIH Syndrome [ google.com ] does seem the most likely explanation .
Which is disappointing .
Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun.Yes , and I predict that whenever Slashdot posts a ZFS article , you can be relied upon to make an entirely inane and ill-informed comment .
Do I get a prize ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predicted [twitter.com] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept.NIH Syndrome [google.com] does seem the most likely explanation.
Which is disappointing.
Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun.Yes, and I predict that whenever Slashdot posts a ZFS article, you can be relied upon to make an entirely inane and ill-informed comment.
Do I get a prize?
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853613</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855249</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256383260000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>0</modscore>
	<htmltext><p><div class="quote"><p>
Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard  is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS.
</p><p>
It is an understatement to say i'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this.
</p><p>
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox, it's a major component of the OS.
</p><p>
It'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows....
</p></div><p>Actually, it would be like Microsoft dropped support of WinFS from Vista. Which they got, and still gets, a ton of grief for. It is interesting that Apple can repeat exactly what MS did, with almost no negative reaction at all in comparison.</p></div>
	</htmltext>
<tokenext>Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS .
It is an understatement to say i 'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this .
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox , it 's a major component of the OS .
It 'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows... . Actually , it would be like Microsoft dropped support of WinFS from Vista .
Which they got , and still gets , a ton of grief for .
It is interesting that Apple can repeat exactly what MS did , with almost no negative reaction at all in comparison .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Hearing that ZFS support was upcoming in Snowleopard  is one of the things that encouraged me to switch my desktop from Windows XP to MacOS.
It is an understatement to say i'm disappointed to see Apple abandoning this.
Support for ZFS is not just a little feature checkbox, it's a major component of the OS.
It'd be like if Microsoft dropped/cancelled support for Solitaire from Windows....
Actually, it would be like Microsoft dropped support of WinFS from Vista.
Which they got, and still gets, a ton of grief for.
It is interesting that Apple can repeat exactly what MS did, with almost no negative reaction at all in comparison.
	</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860217</id>
	<title>Re:The straight dope</title>
	<author>caseih</author>
	<datestamp>1256382900000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>I wasn't talking about bringing ZFS to linux.  Oracle very well could bring ZFS to linux, which be nice for migrating away from Solaris to Linux and reading ZFS disks.  I was referring to porting BtrFS to Solaris.  Unless Oracle owns all the copyrights on the BtrFS code (given the contributors from the kernel community this is unlikely), it can't be placed into Solaris.</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>I was n't talking about bringing ZFS to linux .
Oracle very well could bring ZFS to linux , which be nice for migrating away from Solaris to Linux and reading ZFS disks .
I was referring to porting BtrFS to Solaris .
Unless Oracle owns all the copyrights on the BtrFS code ( given the contributors from the kernel community this is unlikely ) , it ca n't be placed into Solaris .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I wasn't talking about bringing ZFS to linux.
Oracle very well could bring ZFS to linux, which be nice for migrating away from Solaris to Linux and reading ZFS disks.
I was referring to porting BtrFS to Solaris.
Unless Oracle owns all the copyrights on the BtrFS code (given the contributors from the kernel community this is unlikely), it can't be placed into Solaris.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855361</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853613</id>
	<title>Yes.</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256309040000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext>I <a href="http://twitter.com/qu1j0t3/status/3723350224" title="twitter.com">predicted</a> [twitter.com] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept.
<a href="http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-macos/msg/1a9895953e30bc54" title="google.com">NIH Syndrome</a> [google.com] does seem the most likely explanation. Which is disappointing. Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun.</htmltext>
<tokenext>I predicted [ twitter.com ] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept . NIH Syndrome [ google.com ] does seem the most likely explanation .
Which is disappointing .
Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>I predicted [twitter.com] that they were working on a ZFS-alike on 2 Sept.
NIH Syndrome [google.com] does seem the most likely explanation.
Which is disappointing.
Cooperation on ZFS seemed a natural and powerful cross-endorsement for both Apple and Sun.</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854197</id>
	<title>Re:This is devastating...</title>
	<author>Anonymous</author>
	<datestamp>1256318100000</datestamp>
	<modclass>Informativ</modclass>
	<modscore>2</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>
Because 'df'  shows mounted filesystems in the more traditional physical fashion.   It's best to inspect dataset properties to see their status
</p><p> <em>
zfs get available  pool/path/to/dataset
</em> </p><p> <em>
zfs get all pool/path/to/dataset | grep used
</em> </p><p> <em>
zfs list</em> </p><p>
Another thing that can throw you off, if you have compression enabled (lzjb)  and do  dd if=/dev/zero of=blah.txt
</p><p>
And ^C it later...  you can have a 50gb file using  0 bytes on disk
</p><p>
<em>du -m blah.txt</em>
</p><p>
Will show 0 bytes,  but   <em>ls -l blah.txt</em> will show its logical size.
</p><p>
It drives people unaware of zfs compression nuts.
</p><p>
Yes, there's a learning curve to some of the things in zfs... but it's all so totally worth it.
</p><p>
There are some things that are harder in zfs than otherwise.   Most things are a hell of a lot easier, especially <em>volume management</em> with pools VS  traditional volume managers.
</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>Because 'df ' shows mounted filesystems in the more traditional physical fashion .
It 's best to inspect dataset properties to see their status zfs get available pool/path/to/dataset zfs get all pool/path/to/dataset | grep used zfs list Another thing that can throw you off , if you have compression enabled ( lzjb ) and do dd if = /dev/zero of = blah.txt And ^ C it later... you can have a 50gb file using 0 bytes on disk du -m blah.txt Will show 0 bytes , but ls -l blah.txt will show its logical size .
It drives people unaware of zfs compression nuts .
Yes , there 's a learning curve to some of the things in zfs... but it 's all so totally worth it .
There are some things that are harder in zfs than otherwise .
Most things are a hell of a lot easier , especially volume management with pools VS traditional volume managers .</tokentext>
<sentencetext>
Because 'df'  shows mounted filesystems in the more traditional physical fashion.
It's best to inspect dataset properties to see their status
 
zfs get available  pool/path/to/dataset
  
zfs get all pool/path/to/dataset | grep used
  
zfs list 
Another thing that can throw you off, if you have compression enabled (lzjb)  and do  dd if=/dev/zero of=blah.txt

And ^C it later...  you can have a 50gb file using  0 bytes on disk

du -m blah.txt

Will show 0 bytes,  but   ls -l blah.txt will show its logical size.
It drives people unaware of zfs compression nuts.
Yes, there's a learning curve to some of the things in zfs... but it's all so totally worth it.
There are some things that are harder in zfs than otherwise.
Most things are a hell of a lot easier, especially volume management with pools VS  traditional volume managers.
</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853589</parent>
</comment>
<comment>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860667</id>
	<title>Re:Correction</title>
	<author>Hucko</author>
	<datestamp>1256386980000</datestamp>
	<modclass>None</modclass>
	<modscore>1</modscore>
	<htmltext><p>So it isn't a filesystem it is a storagesystem?</p></htmltext>
<tokenext>So it is n't a filesystem it is a storagesystem ?</tokentext>
<sentencetext>So it isn't a filesystem it is a storagesystem?</sentencetext>
	<parent>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515</parent>
</comment>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853389
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854113
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_62</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861379
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_33</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854575
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_19</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861065
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866229
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_47</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853953
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_52</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856723
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_26</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853599
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_20</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854301
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853835
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853499
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_21</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856491
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_39</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853423
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854345
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853647
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856309
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_44</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_46</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_45</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29864427
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_36</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854145
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853115
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855741
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_32</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855249
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866133
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_37</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858687
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855885
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_56</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853445
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_58</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854353
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_61</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_34</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858743
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858413
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_25</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856271
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853589
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854197
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_30</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_59</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853613
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858827
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_53</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860667
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_49</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853229
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853325
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853319
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_60</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853951
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_43</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854431
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853639
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_50</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853493
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_24</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856811
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_23</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853943
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854171
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_48</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853551
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_51</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853537
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853085
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_42</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29857613
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_38</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29871277
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_41</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861871
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854335
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_29</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854709
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855361
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860217
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_22</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853611
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855441
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853581
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_35</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853523
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_40</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854729
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_54</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853469
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_28</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860971
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_31</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853439
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_27</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853365
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_18</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29900233
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_55</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854453
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854421
</commentlist>
</thread>
<thread>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#thread_09_10_23_2210246_57</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309
http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853567
</commentlist>
</thread>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.13</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856797
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.11</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853107
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853423
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854345
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856811
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853551
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853455
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854709
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855361
-----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860217
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858413
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853613
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858827
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853611
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854421
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853523
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854171
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853537
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854729
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854301
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861871
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853289
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854189
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866133
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861065
----http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29866229
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858687
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853365
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853301
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29857613
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853835
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853953
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853639
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.14</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853229
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853325
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.17</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856271
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29871277
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.12</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853381
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854591
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855885
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853951
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.15</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854037
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.16</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854131
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.4</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853073
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853115
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853085
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853121
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853515
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29858743
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860971
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854145
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855441
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29860667
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.2</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853133
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853279
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853529
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854453
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29861379
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854567
---http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854431
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854353
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853239
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853445
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853469
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29864427
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.10</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853221
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856723
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853499
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.5</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854163
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.8</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29857017
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.3</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853567
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853647
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856309
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29855249
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853589
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854197
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.6</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854343
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29856491
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29900233
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.9</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853041
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.7</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854091
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.0</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853897
</commentlist>
</conversation>
<conversation>
	<id>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#conversation09_10_23_2210246.1</id>
	<commentlist>http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853183
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853293
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853581
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853439
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853319
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853741
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854335
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853493
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853743
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853599
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853389
--http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854113
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29853943
-http://www.semanticweb.org/ontologies/ConversationInstances.owl#comment09_10_23_2210246.29854575
</commentlist>
</conversation>
