Linked by John Finigan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC
Oracle and SUN When it comes to dealing with storage, Solaris 10 provides admins with more choices than any other operating system. Right out of the box, it offers two filesystems, two volume managers, an iscsi target and initiator, and, naturally, an NFS server. Add a couple of Sun packages and you have volume replication, a cluster filesystem, and a hierarchical storage manager. Trust your data to the still-in-development features found in OpenSolaris, and you can have a fibre channel target and an in-kernel CIFS server, among other things. True, some of these features can be found in any enterprise-ready UNIX OS. But Solaris 10 integrates all of them into one well-tested package. Editor's note: This is the first of our published submissions for the 2008 Article Contest.
Thread beginning with comment 310775
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ZFS is a dead end.
by BSDfan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 20:11 UTC
BSDfan
Member since:
2007-03-14

The design of ZFS is ugly and doesn't fit in with the Unix philosophy.

UFS > ZFS.

Hands down. No debate. Don't try, you're wasting your time.

:)

Reply Score: -4

RE: ZFS is a dead end.
by sbergman27 on Mon 21st Apr 2008 20:22 in reply to "ZFS is a dead end."
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Could you elaborate on that? I have some concerns about mixing the fs and raid layers. But the self healing features are attractive. And the admin utilities are a dream. I only wish that I had such a nice command-line interface to manipulate fdisk/mdadm/lvm/mkfs in the Linux world. There is no reason that this could not be done. But the fact is that, in all these years, it hasn't been done. People point me at EVMS when I speak along these lines. But EVMS really doesn't cut it. In fact, every time I check it out, I come away wondering what it is really for, and what problem it actually solves.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Doc Pain on Mon 21st Apr 2008 21:35 in reply to "RE: ZFS is a dead end."
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

I have some concerns about mixing the fs and raid layers.


Furthermore, I can imagine where plain UFS is the best solution (i. e. where ZFS would be "too much of the good"), for example on systems with lower ressources or where extending the the storage "pool" won't happen. UFS is a very stable and fast file system (the article mentions this), and along with the well known UNIX mounting operations, it can still be very powerful. For example, FreeBSD uses the UFS2 file system with "soft updates". But well, these settings usually aren't places where Solaris come to use.

But the self healing features are attractive.


But remember, kids: This doesn't obsolete your accurate backups. :-)

And the admin utilities are a dream.


Once you have taken the fime to read the zfs manpages, these utilities are very welcome. Especially the central zfs service program interface makes formatting and mounting very easy. It has advantages over the relatively static /etc/vfstab.

And nice to see that the Veritas volume manager has been mentioned in the article. IN VINUM VERITAS. See vinum(8) manpage. =^_^=

Edited 2008-04-21 21:38 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 6

RE: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 15:03 in reply to "ZFS is a dead end."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Can't say I disagree. The layering violations are more important than some people realise, and what's worse is that Sun didn't need to do it that way. They could have created a base filesystem and abstracted out the RAID, volume management and other features while creating consistent looking userspace tools.

The all-in-one philosophy makes it that much more difficult to create other implementations of ZFS, and BSD and Apple will find it that much more difficult to do - if at all really. It makes coexistence with other filesystems that much more difficult as well, with more duplication of similar functionality. Despite the hype surrounding ZFS by Sun at the time of Solaris 10, ZFS still isn't Solaris' main filesystem by default. That tells you a lot.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Weeman on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 16:52 in reply to "RE: ZFS is a dead end."
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

Can't say I disagree. The layering violations are more important than some people realise, and what's worse is that Sun didn't need to do it that way. They could have created a base filesystem and abstracted out the RAID, volume management and other features while creating consistent looking userspace tools.

a) There are no layering violations. The Linux camp keeps claiming that because it's implemented completely different than how they do their stuff. ZFS works differently, period.

b) So, what's inconsistent with zpool and zfs?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Arun on Wed 23rd Apr 2008 23:13 in reply to "RE: ZFS is a dead end."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Can't say I disagree. The layering violations are more important than some people realise, and what's worse is that Sun didn't need to do it that way. They could have created a base filesystem and abstracted out the RAID, volume management and other features while creating consistent looking userspace tools.


Please stop parroting one Linux developer's view. Go look at the ZFS docs. ZFS is layered. Linux developers talk crap about every thing that is not linux. Classic NIH syndrome.

ZFS was designed to make volume management and filesystems easy to use and bulletproof. What you and linux guys want defeats that purpose and the current technologies in linux land illustrate that fact to no end.

The all-in-one philosophy makes it that much more difficult to create other implementations of ZFS, and BSD and Apple will find it that much more difficult to do - if at all really. It makes coexistence with other filesystems that much more difficult as well, with more duplication of similar functionality. Despite the hype surrounding ZFS by Sun at the time of Solaris 10, ZFS still isn't Solaris' main filesystem by default. That tells you a lot.


That's just plain wrong. ZFS is working fine on BSD and OS X. ZFS doesn't make coexistence with other filesystems difficult. On my Solaris box I have UFS and ZFS filesytems with zero problems. In fact I can create a zvol from my pool and format it with UFS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end.
by phoenix on Thu 24th Apr 2008 04:07 in reply to "RE: ZFS is a dead end."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Can't say I disagree. The layering violations are more important than some people realise, and what's worse is that Sun didn't need to do it that way. They could have created a base filesystem and abstracted out the RAID, volume management and other features while creating consistent looking userspace tools.


What are the layering violations? Could someone point me toward some good links (or search terms) for the info?

I'm just curious if this is a "the tools aren't split out into separate fs, raid, volume, disk management tools" issue or a "source code is unreadable as everything is lumped together in one big lump" issue, or what. What are the layers of ZFS on Solaris, for example, as compared to the same layers in Linux. What's so different about FreeBSD that a single developer was able to get basic ZFS support working in under two weeks, and yet there's still no ZFS support on Linux?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end.
by phoenix on Thu 24th Apr 2008 05:08 in reply to "RE: ZFS is a dead end."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The all-in-one philosophy makes it that much more difficult to create other implementations of ZFS, and BSD and Apple will find it that much more difficult to do - if at all really.


Urh, you do realise that ZFS is already available in FreeBSD 7.0, right?

It makes coexistence with other filesystems that much more difficult as well, with more duplication of similar functionality.


Export a zvol and put whatever filesystem you want on top (okay, may only UFS is directly supported, but you can use iSCSI and such to export the zvol to other systems and then put whatever FS you want on top). ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2