Linked by Marquis on Fri 22nd May 2009 13:02 UTC
FreeBSD For all of you using FreeBSD and ZFS, Kip Macy (kmacy) and Pawel Jakub Dawidek (pjd) merged ZFS Version 13 into FreeBSD 7-STABLE. Here is a breakdown of some of the new features: kmem now goes up to 512GB so arc is now limited by physmem, the arc now experiences backpressure from the vm (which can be too much - but this allows ZFS to work without any tunables on amd64), L2ARC Level 2 cache for ZFS which allows you to use additional disks for cache, and more.
Order by: Score:
Still slow
by kragil on Fri 22nd May 2009 13:32 UTC
kragil
Member since:
2006-01-04

And performance is still atrocious.

Reply Score: 1

This is good
by Piranha on Fri 22nd May 2009 13:59 UTC
Piranha
Member since:
2008-06-24

I'm having some issues where my fileserver keeps restarting on its own every 5-17 days (it's inconsistent) and running OpenSolaris ZFS 13..

Looks like now I can run my array off FreeBSD while testing to see if it's hardware or software related!

Thanks OSNEWS!

Reply Score: 2

v licences
by ssam on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:34 UTC
RE: licences
by kaiwai on Fri 22nd May 2009 15:15 UTC in reply to "licences"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

if you mix BSD and CDDL code what licence is the derived code subject too?

surely its CDDL. so will it be renamed to FreeCDDL?

or maybe the result is BSD. in that case 'woot'. because BSD+GPL = GPL, so it can go in the linux kernel :-)

or do you just get something undistributable? like when you mix GPL with proprietary?


Under the OpenSolaris licencing FAQ there is the following which clears things up:

If you wanted a copyleft license, why didn't you just use the GPL or LGPL?

We needed an open source license that allowed files released under the license to be linked with files released under other licenses. While a license like LGPL would allow this for dynamically-linked code, we also needed to be able to release software that statically links source files available under different licenses. In addition, we wanted to allow others to add externsions to OpenSolaris with different license terms. This was only possible under a license like the MPL; however, we could not use the MPL because it is not a "template" license allowing reuse by others. Consequently, we crafted a variant of the MPL, taking the opportunity to make it a template license as a step towards reducing license proliferation for others finding themselves in a similar position.


Thus I assume that GPL/LGPL isn't a file based licence (someone correct me if I am wrong).

Reply Score: 6

RE: licences
by strcpy on Fri 22nd May 2009 15:22 UTC in reply to "licences"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

Of course it is in CDDL. What made you think otherwise? Besides, not everyone is crazy enough to name their operating systems as X/Y.

I also wonder about these demands that the codebase of OpenSolaris should be GPL-compatible. Not because it would be a good thing for OpenSolaris, but because that way Linux people could exploit it? Makes me sad to even think about this possibility.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: licences
by segedunum on Tue 26th May 2009 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE: licences"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I also wonder about these demands that the codebase of OpenSolaris should be GPL-compatible.

They're not demands, although some people like to think they are. The fact is that if you're going to say that you have an open source project then it seems reasonable to see some source code actually going into it with a license that actually has a point to it to facilitate that process.

Not because it would be a good thing for OpenSolaris, but because that way Linux people could exploit it? Makes me sad to even think about this possibility.

Keep being sad because I doubt whether anyone in the Linux world cares about the OpenSolaris codebase. Linus himself has said as much from a kernel perspective. Solaris has nowhere near the depth or quality of device drivers that Linux has, especially on x86 which is where it all started for Linux and where it all started to go wrong for Solaris. Solaris's userspace is also gradually being forced kicking and screaming into the 21st century with you guessed it, much of the (L)GPLed userspace software you'll find as standard on all Linux distros.

Really, it's sad to think of how irrelevant much of OpenSolaris's codebase is now that large parts of it have been 'open sourced'.........eventually.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: licences
by cade on Wed 27th May 2009 07:39 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: licences"
cade Member since:
2009-02-28

It was mentioned
"... I doubt whether anyone in the Linux world cares about the OpenSolaris codebase."

Well, regarding the state of these OSes, we have a "newbie" operating system (i.e. Linux) that is not UNIX (i.e. is not able to adhere to a UNIX (i.e. properly designed) specification; where's IBM/HP to help with this ?) and had been developed from someone's bedroom versus a "beast" operating system (Solaris) developed in a commercial environment which has a proven commercial track record satisfying real-WORLD constraints and real-world warranties.

If users/developers of this "newbie" operating system have a hard time respecting the "beast" operating system for what it is then it's their problem and not a problem for (Open)Solaris user/developer/admin.


It was mentioned:
"... I doubt whether anyone in the Linux world cares about the OpenSolaris codebase. Linus himself has said as much from a kernel perspective."

Open-sourcing of OpenSolaris ensures the existence and advance of multiple OpenSolaris-based distributions. It appears a bit brave to think that Linux is the be-all/end-all in the operating system front and thinking that anything being open-sourced was intentional for the benefit of Linux. Actually, if Sun Microsystems were interested in Linux very-easily scalping Solaris-based technologies then OpenSolaris code would have been released using the viral GPL licence.


Do you really believe a non-standardised, hacked-away/unbridled operating system has serious use in life-support medical equipment, nuclear power station management, or operating system for multi-million dollar scientific equipment ?
Last time I checked (back in my doctoral work in late 1990's) this was not the case and for obvious reasons.
Although it has it's place, Linux has it's serious "cracks".

It was said:
"Solaris has nowhere near the depth or quality of device drivers that Linux has ..."

If it came down to device drivers then we all would be using Microsoft's operating systems and there are reasons why alternative (e.g. UNIX/UNIX-based) operating systems are preferred over Microsoft's operating systems. As with Theo de Raadt's view (Re: OpenBSD) we all realize that if the hardware companies were more forthcoming with hardware documentation then device driver support would be much better for many operating systems.

It was said:
" .. especially on x86 which is where it all started for Linux and where it all started to go wrong for Solaris."

Really.
Why is it that OpenSolaris on my Opteron-based HP xw9300 is superb for my user/development needs ?

Why is it that on installing FreeBSD, Linux, and OpenSolaris distributions on a new x86-based system for an existing/happy Linux user friend of mine it had caused my friend after about a week of testing to realise that OpenSolaris would be his preferred non-"Windows" platform ?


It was mentioned ...
"Solaris's userspace is also gradually being forced kicking and screaming into the 21st century with you guessed it, much of the (L)GPLed userspace software you'll find as standard on all Linux distros."

I hear no complaints from my OpenSolaris system whenever it runs (L)GPLed userspace software that Linux also runs.





It was said:
"... it's sad to think of how irrelevant much of OpenSolaris's codebase is now that large parts of it have been 'open sourced'.........eventually"

So, is Linux' code largely irrelevant because it was open-sourced ?

Still, why is it that cloning of Sun technologies like {ZFS, DTrace} got a junp-start after these technologies were open-sourced ?

Reply Score: 1

RE: licences
by t3RRa on Sun 24th May 2009 01:52 UTC in reply to "licences"
t3RRa Member since:
2005-11-22

you are very off-topic, and one of the reasons that made me move over to BSD side from Linux(or GPL) was zealots like you.

Reply Score: 1

RE[2]: licences
by KAMiKAZOW on Sun 24th May 2009 17:34 UTC in reply to "RE: licences"
KAMiKAZOW Member since:
2005-07-06

You use BSD without using a single bit of GPLed software? Is that even possible?

Personally, I like BSD-like licenses more, but the Linux kernel has broader hardware support than the free BSDs -- especially for laptops (Mac OS X is a different story, though).

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: licences
by strcpy on Sun 24th May 2009 17:53 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: licences"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

You use BSD without using a single bit of GPLed software? Is that even possible?


You use Linux without using a single bit of BSDed software? Is that even possible?

The point being?

Reply Score: 1

Front page
by mith on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:36 UTC
mith
Member since:
2007-03-15

Just wondering why on a site called OSNews, we have articles in the front page about an Ex Microsoft employee, about a web broser, about a DBMS, about some law, a review of a game, etc and a news piece about an OS is on the Page 2...

--- EDIT: Corrected a typo

Edited 2009-05-22 14:40 UTC

Reply Score: 12

RE: Front page
by strcpy on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:46 UTC in reply to "Front page"
strcpy Member since:
2009-05-20

I think it is about popularity.

You know, more hits and clicks for OSnews from every nonsense Linux article rather than from an interesting article about "alternative" or "exotic" operating systems.

Sounds harsh but was meant as a gentle criticism.

Reply Score: 7

RE[2]: Front page
by mith on Fri 22nd May 2009 14:54 UTC in reply to "RE: Front page"
mith Member since:
2007-03-15

I think you are right ;)

But an article like this getting to front page wouldn't harm OSNews's earnings that much in my opionion...

But anyway this is just my opinion and i really like OSNews. I intend this to be constructive criticism.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Front page
by miscz on Fri 22nd May 2009 15:06 UTC in reply to "Front page"
miscz Member since:
2005-07-17

IIRC front page news is for original content only. Page 2 is for link to other sites with short summaries.

Reply Score: 2

RE: Front page
by edogawaconan on Fri 22nd May 2009 16:29 UTC in reply to "Front page"
edogawaconan Member since:
2006-10-10

submit long news and it'll be in front page (iirc 'front page' actually means 'news that have "read more"').

Reply Score: 1

RE: Front page
by phoenix on Fri 22nd May 2009 16:34 UTC in reply to "Front page"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Just wondering why on a site called OSNews, we have articles in the front page about an Ex Microsoft employee, about a web broser, about a DBMS, about some law, a review of a game, etc and a news piece about an OS is on the Page 2...


Wow, seriously? Are we going to have to go through this for every page 2 story? Is it really that hard a concept to grasp?

Page 1 == editors write a blurb about the story, expanding it beyond a copy/paste summary. Note how these all have "read more" links.

Page 2 == "story" is just a copy/paste summary with a link to the real story on some other site.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Front page
by dagw on Fri 22nd May 2009 17:50 UTC in reply to "RE: Front page"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

Page 1 == editors write a blurb about the story, expanding it beyond a copy/paste summary. Note how these all have "read more" links.

Page 2 == "story" is just a copy/paste summary with a link to the real story on some other site.

Which essentially makes it problem with the editor. Why does OSnews have an editor who prefers to write editorials about everything and anything other than hard core technical OS stuff. I still enjoy OSnews but it seems to taking a far more 'soft' direction where shitty sitcoms get more editorial coverage than hard cutting edge technical developments.

Reply Score: 3

RE[3]: Front page
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 18:12 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Front page"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29
RE[4]: Front page
by dagw on Fri 22nd May 2009 18:24 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Front page"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

My comment was of a more systemic nature. As a rule the front page seems to get more of the fluff and far less of hard technical stories.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Front page
by Thom_Holwerda on Fri 22nd May 2009 18:26 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Front page"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

This story IS on the frontpage. That's what I'm trying to say. You guys are getting knickers in twists over nothing but labels. We made a change recently that puts all page 2 items in the exact same place as front page items, so what is all this nonsense about?

That's what I mean with the image.

Reply Score: 1

RE[6]: Front page
by dagw on Fri 22nd May 2009 22:00 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Front page"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

This story IS on the frontpage.

But still very much a second class citizen. For what its worth I think the new page box in the middle of the page is more annoying than the old box on the side, but that's just me.

If you want my opinion (and I'll understand if you don't) get rid of page 1 and page 2. Have all stories equal. If you wish to add "read more" to some and not others that's totally cool, but don't split the stories based purely on that.

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Front page
by sbenitezb on Fri 22nd May 2009 23:50 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Front page"
sbenitezb Member since:
2005-07-22

I agree with previous poster too. The inline box sucks compared to the previous two tabs. Perhaps a "Most voted" tab for preferred stories wouldn't do harm? Just another way to order stuff.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: Front page
by mith on Sat 23rd May 2009 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE: Front page"
mith Member since:
2007-03-15

Good explanation. Sorry for the confusion.

Then is just plain sad that who maintains this place only writes articles about everything but operative systems.

Edited 2009-05-23 04:05 UTC

Reply Score: 2

ZFS rules
by eydaimon on Fri 22nd May 2009 18:40 UTC
eydaimon
Member since:
2006-03-22

Thanks for getting this stuff up to date. The features for ZFS I'm mostly waiting for involve the ZFSBoot!

I can't wait to get everything ZFS so my disk management gets really easy. Swapping out harddrives just becomes such a breeze.

Thanks for all the effort going into this.

btw, I think it sucks that out of 15 comments on this news, only 2 seemed relevant to the original post.

Reply Score: 5

RE: ZFS rules
by Chreo on Wed 27th May 2009 11:30 UTC in reply to "ZFS rules"
Chreo Member since:
2005-07-06

ZFSBoot is possible and available under FreeBSD. I would, however, recommend going the route of a gmirror-UFS boot partition to store rescue binaries on (besides the kernel of course). It could save a system from an unfortunate mistake

Reply Score: 1