Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Nov 2010 23:37 UTC, submitted by comay
Oracle and SUN Today Oracle released its latest version of Solaris technology, the Oracle Solaris 11 Express 2010.11 release. It includes a large number of new features not found in either Oracle Solaris 10 or previous OpenSolaris releases including ZFS encryption and deduplication, network-based packaging and provisioning systems, network virtualization, optimized I/O for NUMA platforms and optimized platform support including support for Intel's latest Nehalem and SPARC T3. In addition, Oracle Solaris 10 support is available from within a container/zone so migration of existing systems is greatly simplified. The release is available under a variety of licenses including a supported commercial license on a wide variety of x86 and SPARC platforms.
Permalink for comment 450113
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Tue 16th Nov 2010 11:51 UTC in reply to "ZFS"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

I dont get it. What is it to worry about the future of ZFS?


I mean, BTRFS is a joke. Sure, it will have lots of cool features (copying every ZFS function) but that is far away in the future. As of now, BTRFS is unstable and corrupts data. Have you not read the BTRFS mail lists? I would never ever trust my data on BTRFS, maybe in 10 years. But not now.

And, why should Oracle devote resources to make BTRFS better than ZFS? It will take many years before BTRFS catches up on where ZFS is today. But in 10 years, ZFS will have got much better than today. In short, BTRFS will never catch up.

Oracle earns money on ZFS today, they sell ZFS products today. Why would Oracle can ZFS, and wait 5 years until BTRFS catches up on where ZFS is today, and then wait another 5 years before BTRFS have surpasses ZFS - in total 10 years before Oracle can earn money?

From a business perspective, if you have two similar products - one mature and superior and already earns money, and one in alpha stage and buggy and only consumes money - you should kill of the weaker product. It is a simple as that.

No, the most logical step, from a pure business perspective, would be to kill BTRFS - dont you agree? Actually,
"I'm really worried about the future of BTRFS".

I really dont understand your view point.

Reply Parent Score: 5