Linked by David Adams on Wed 24th Sep 2008 22:44 UTC, submitted by snydeq
Talk, Rumors, X Versus Y Linux Foundation Executive Director Jim Zemlin has said it is time for Solaris to simply move out of the way and yield the future to Linux. 'The future is Linux and Microsoft Windows. It is not Unix or Solaris,' he claims, contending that Sun's strength in long-lifecycle apps is giving way to Linux, as evidenced by the rise of Web apps, where Linux holds a decided advantage, Zemlin claims. With capabilities such as ZFS and DTrace, Sun is trying to compete based on minor features, he says. 'That's literally like noticing the view from a third-story building as it burns to the ground.'
Permalink for comment 331606
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[4]: Offensive
by Kebabbert on Fri 26th Sep 2008 07:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Offensive"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

"I keep reading that ZFS requires at least another gig to function, as compared to a non-ZFS system. Add to that the extra CPU cycles to manage the thing, and yes, it is a resource hog.

I wonder what use ZFS would have for a desktop? I realize it has some cool features, but what advantage are they on a desktop?"

I used to run a ZFS raid on a P4@2.4GHz and 1GB RAM. It worked fine during a year. The problem was that I got like 20-30MB/sec transfer speed. But that is due to 32bit CPU. ZFS is 128 bit and likes 64 bit CPU. On 64bit with many drives, you can reach 5-600MB/sec at best. On a typical home server you can reach 120MB/sec:

http://blogs.sun.com/barts/entry/new_home_server#comments





ZFS likes to cache things up, that is the reason it uses all avaiable RAM for cache. ZFS gives back the RAM when asked for, but if no one is using the RAM, ZFS will use all RAM it can grab. Remember, ZFS is an ENTERPRISE server file system. RAM is of concern there. But ZFS works great with 1 GB RAM, as I can testify.


Now, why would anyone use ZFS on the desktop? Well, because of one thing: data integrity. All filesystems relies on the underlying hardware for error detection and correction. But what if the hardware is faulty (a short current spike, cosmic radiation, faulty power supply, over clocked RAM, etc)? Then you are smoked. The bits in RAM will flip on their way to the hard disc. But ZFS detects the flipped bits (in RAM or on the hard drive) and _guarantees_ that the RAM or hard drive is intact with no changes. ZFS ASSUMES that the hardware is unreliable and can deal with all these problems and correct them too. There are problems that ZFS can solve, which no hardware raid can solve. I trust more in ZFS than in hardware raid. My friend which is CIO told me about several occasions where their hardware raid got broke, because the card's BIOS was buggy!

Conclusion; if you value your data, you use ZFS. If not, you dont have to use ZFS.

Here is a long article of a Linux guy who tries out ZFS for home use and loves it. Very informative:

http://breden.org.uk/2008/03/02/a-home-fileserver-using-zfs/




Here is a discussion of future file systems and the directions. And what problems they have to solve in future. And how ZFS have solved the problems.

http://www.acmqueue.org/modules.php?name=Content&pa=showpage&pid=50...

Edited 2008-09-26 08:07 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2