Linked by Rahul on Mon 13th Oct 2008 21:19 UTC
Linux Linux Foundation is organizing a end user collaboration summit this week. A major topic will be a presentation on the new upcoming filesystems - Ext4 and Btrfs. Ted Tso, who is a Linux kernel filesystem developer on a sabbatical from IBM working for Linux Foundation for a year, has talked about the two-pronged approach for the Linux kernel, taking a incremental approach with Ext4 while simultaneously working on the next generation filesystem called btrfs. Read more for details.
Permalink for comment 334092
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Arun
Member since:
2005-07-07


F***. You mean to tell me that you rely on your own nose to tell you that you have a gas problem, and you rely on that to keep the system going rather than finding and fixing the problem or getting yourself a decent gas system to start off with?


Unless you can see gas, how the F*** do you detect it. Why do you think they add additives to propane and butane to make it smell? To make it easy for people to detect they have a problem. Why do you think carbon monoxide is so deadly because people can't detect it by smell. They get sensors put in to detect it.

If you can't detect the problem how do you know you have one? After damage is done?

I really would like you to use this argument to convince some one that your stupid idea is the best way to design a safe system. They will instantly have you committed to an asylum which is where you really belong for trying to defend your nonsensical position.

You ask this:
How many problems that ZFS has caught over time have resulted in fixes and patches to Solaris?


and then immediately said this:
In this case, Solaris's drivers need fixing, because the vast majority of what ZFS picks up are invariably device driver problems when you get to the heart of it.


Get your head examined.

Oh, if only Solaris had Linux's device drivers and the wide range of testing that goes on in a true open source project where people get the code, compile it on lots of hardware and find problems.


No with linux you just get data corruption and lose data because nothing really detects the problems.

Here is a gentoo developers perspective:
http://planet.gentoo.org/developers/lavajoe/2008/02/18/linux_needs_...

"ZFS is Sun's very cool filesystem. I won't go into detail here - just google it - but it has some eye-opening features, the most critical of which is end-to-end data integrity. Unfortunately, ZFS's license is incompatible with the GPL.

I say "critical" because I have a strong feeling that silent data corruption is far more prevalent than most people believe. Also, I just don't buy the argument that bit-for-bit reliability is only important for servers. Yes, in certain circumstances, a bit flip here or there may not be noticed, but I think that is scary as hell. Personally, I'd rather know; I count on computers to copy the bits exactly, don't you? We simply cannot tolerate random bit errors, no matter how "unnoticeable". And you will notice if that bit flip hits a critical part of your file.


In my experience with computers, I have caught two examples of silent data corruption. These are ones I actually discovered. It freaks me out to think there may be many more that went unnoticed. And both were due to bad IDE cables (so even the hard disk error rates don't count here) on two different computer systems. The first on the old and slow PATA and was some data pattern dependent copy glitch, where a diff found the problem. The other was this past year on a modern UDMA/80-conductor cable, and it was found by ZFS - it appears that during some reported DMA errors (probably the cable's fault), a 64K file block got written to the wrong spot on the disk (PATA does not protect the data address part of the communication).

ZFS is the only filesystem that actually will catch silent corruption in the whole chain: ATA interface -> cable -> disk (HW and firmware). For those who say, "Why not RAID?", well, RAID will save you if a whole drive fails, but not these more insidious issues. I bet Linus and others are seriously thinking about what to do, since what once was considered rare could become commonplace. There are rumors Apple will adopt ZFS, and FreeBSD already has it in its kernel (and, of course, Solaris has it). For now, zfs-fuse is very interesting, but I think we need such protection of our data in the kernel, and soon."


So Solaris runs on very, very few platforms, as does ZFS, and is highly unlikely to ever run on a ARM or PowerPC device? Glad we've established that you have no data and no evidence of a counter claim whatsoever. You're mighty glad to start demanding evidence from others when people start pointing out issues and your paranoia kicks in.


Zfs works fine on MacOS X PowerPC. I already posted the data. If you can't read and comprehend that isn't my problem.


Go ahead and provide me with a list of ARM NAS devices BTRFS is being tested on. Your argument is moronic. Because even the developers of BTRFS claim they are tackling the problem of linux filesystems scaling up for large loads.

http://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Main_Page
"Linux has a wealth of filesystems to choose from, but we are facing a number of challenges with scaling to the large storage subsystems that are becoming common in today's data centers. Filesystems need to scale in their ability to address and manage large storage, and also in their ability to detect, repair and tolerate errors in the data stored on disk.

....
The main Btrfs features include:
Checksums on data and metadata (multiple algorithms available)
"

Gee I wonder why the BTRFS page mentions the need to detect errors. Isn't that the hardware's job?

You are the only idiot claiming it will scale down to ARM NAS boxes with 128MB RAM. The design goal for BTRFS is large data centers and they realize that a filesystem should detect errors.


You have produced no such list, lying about it isn't going to help you and I can give you an answer. No one is committing into Solaris's source tree because there is no open source repository and, as such, no open source Solaris project.


You are even more delusional than I could ever imagine. A list of hardware supported by an OS has nothing to do with what external people are committing to the source base. If people want Solaris to scale down they will make it happen. Right now there is no real need or market. WindRiver, Linux, QNX, FreeBSD can all be embedded OSes. There is no market need for Solaris in embedded systems that is why no one is committing anything to Solaris for ARM. If people want ZFS on ARM based devices they can use FreeBSD or the QNX guys that already picked up DTrace will port it.

If some one really sees a need for OpenSolaris on their hardware they will port it. Nothing to do with license.

Why do you think the *BSDs don't get as much support as linux? To use your stupid logic it must be because they are not "true open source" OSes. Linux became a buzz word and gained mind share. It is also a OS good. Mindshare + Quality = Marketshare. You can have the quality but without mindshare you can't capture a market. Microsoft has tremendous mindshare. Linux can't seem to displace it from the desktop.

People are returning netbooks with linux 4x more than those with XP.

Difficult to face with someone of your obvious issues, but true nonetheless.


Are you talking to your self again? Off your meds? Others have commented on how difficult it is talking to your. I am glad you finally had some self realization.

Edited 2008-10-17 16:17 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2