"NTFS is not robust compared to the proprietary unix filesystems, most of which are VxFS based." (err evidence please you need to back up claims like that)
"And NTFS is light years behind what ZFS is and will be capable of doing in the future." (Err well yeh i'd expect it to improve at some point in 'the future' are you also saying that MS filesystems will not improve?)
Well they haven't done a very good job with WinFS have they? Not looking good ...Originally Posted by cookie_monster
Wikipedia has a fun page comparing various file systems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems
it looks like these schema can be applied to existing 2003, I suppose these XML templates can be re-written aswell?
You would need to install a 2008 DC (even if only temporarly) to do the schema extension.it looks like these schema can be applied to existing 2003
Who are you going to pay to do that then?I suppose these XML templates can be re-written aswell
A 2008 upgrade would be extremely costly, I need to work out the long benefits of both routes for the school.Who are you going to pay to do that then?
My 'evidence' is based on personal experience of working with VxFS on solaris servers (additional cost option admittedly) and JFS (again veritas based, but included with hp-ux foundation OE) on HP-UX servers, and more recently administering windows servers using NTFS. Not emperical i know, but i know which filesystems i found to be more reliable.
WinFS is still looking promising but it's taken a back burner while MS sort out their crappy client products and conduct security rewrites of older poor software.
http://blogs.msdn.com/winfs/archive/...23/644706.aspx
Last edited by cookie_monster; 28th January 2008 at 10:56 AM.
Conside this.....
ZFS is a viable alternative when creating storage 'appliances' using commodity x86 hardware and opensolaris...saving you a huge bundle compared to deploying propreity NAS and iSCSI filers from the likes of netapp which employ proprietary OS and filesystems e.g Netapp's WAFL.
Now, what's the windows/NTFS alternative for building such a system ? vanilla Windows server 2003, eugh!! no thanks. And even worse, the monstrosity that is Windows storage server 2003 for NAS and ISCSI.
The opensolaris storage group is doing the most interesting work on the opensolaris project....with a little bit of work (sorry, a lot of work) you can have a system using x86 hardware and inexpensive SATA disks that can support a number of the various storage protocols - NFS, CIFS, NDMP for backup, block storage presentation via FC or iSCSI. All on the foundations of a solid filesystem.
That's not strictly a filesystem win for ZFS, but you can't built anything comparable using windows and NTFS as the filesystem foundation.
It was a huge u-turn integrating winFS into SQL server only....will it ever make it into windows server ?, well the win 2008 ship has sailed, and it's conceivable they could ship it with server 2011/2012, but that's a looongg way off. They'll no doubt have their hands full getting the next OS out on time, WinFS may be too much of a hassle in which case they'll take the easy option and ship it with NTFSv?
Although this is all interesting i think we're deviating from the 2008 features area that the thread is about.
On top of the increase in the available number of GPO settings (there are zillions now) they've changed where ADM templates are stored so there's one location rather than storing them all in every single policy. From what I've seen though they expect you to manually create the central store folder and configure it.
I hope policy processing is faster in that case.
I think thats part of why there is now a GP client service.
quick question, didnt see much point in starting a new thread, but for those who have installed it on virtual server, where is the SCSI driver? It was always detected automatically with 2003 + Xp so it surprised me somewhat..
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks