Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Sep 2013 22:04 UTC, submitted by garyd
General Development

ZFS is the world's most advanced filesystem, in active development for over a decade. Recent development has continued in the open, and OpenZFS is the new formal name for this open community of developers, users, and companies improving, using, and building on ZFS. Founded by members of the Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and illumos communities, including Matt Ahrens, one of the two original authors of ZFS, the OpenZFS community brings together over a hundred software developers from these platforms.

ZFS plays a major role in Solaris, of course, but beyond that, has it found other major homes? In fact, now that we're at it, how is Solaris doing anyway?

Permalink for comment 572788
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[8]: Solaris is doing well
by Kebabbert on Sun 22nd Sep 2013 18:48 UTC in reply to "RE[7]: Solaris is doing well"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

You are clearly taking everything oracle says at face value, and provided that I were to take everything they said at face value, then you are right: linux scales poorly.

I am not really accepting everything that Oracle says. But I "trust" Oracle more than IBM, because IBM has time and again been proven to do pure FUD, they started the FUD thing in first place. IBM = masters of FUD.

I trust benchmarks more, than subjective marketing slogans. I even mostly accept IBM benchmarks. I want to see hard numbers, benchmarks.

Oracle actually has nothing against Linux. Instead, Oracle promotes Linux and bets heavily on Linux too. So Oracle does not dispel the Linux FUD - I am doing that. Oracle does not care, as long as they sell and earn money. However, the margin are better in high end servers, costing millions of USD.



Regarding non scalability of Linux. Even if you dont agree with Linux scaling bad - do you agree that there has never existed > 8-socket Linux servers? A) No one sells such large Linux servers - do you agree on this?

B) If you agree on this, do you agree that Linux has not been tested nor optimized on > 8 socket servers?

C) If you agree on B), do you agree that it is highly probable that Linux scales bad, because no kernel developer has ever tweaked Linux into many socket territory?

Which of A), B) or C) do agree with, and which do you disagree with? If you agree on all three, then we both agree that it is "highly probable that Linux scales bad", right? Not "Linux scales bad", but "highly probable it scales bad", right?

I have not proof on this, but there are benchmarks on similar hardware where Linux stutters and behaves bad. And HP benhcmarks showed awful performance on 64 socket server. Sure, there might be some work loads that Linux actually handles ok, but in general it is highly probable it scales bad.

So, do we both agree on "highly probable that Linux scales bad"? Or do you prefer "probable that Linux scales bad"? Or none of this?



PS. I wonder, for these SGI UV1000 NUMA servers, are developers always using MPI and similar cluster libraries, when developing software for it? You must always use MPI when developing for SGI NUMA servers? (I am convinced the Solaris SMP alike servers are not using MPI. I am convinced they just copy the Solaris binaries to the SMP servers, without rewriting them.)

Reply Parent Score: 2