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 310880
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 15:03 UTC 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[3]: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 22:04 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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.

A filesystem, a volume manager, a software RAID manager and bad block detection and recovery code with functionality not unlike smartd, along with various other things, all in one codebase? That's a (unnecessary) layering violation in anybody's book, so saying the above isn't going to make what you've written true.

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

Nothing. It's about the only real advantage of ZFS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[3]: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Fri 25th Apr 2008 02:37 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Please stop parroting one Linux developer's view. Go look at the ZFS docs. ZFS is layered.

Feel free to describe what those layers are and what they do. It certainly isn't layered into a filesystem, volume manager and RAID subsystems.

ZFS was designed to make volume management and filesystems easy to use and bulletproof.

When it's been around as long as the Vertitas Storage System, or indeed, pretty much any other filesystem, volume manager or software RAID implementation, give us a call.

What you and linux guys want defeats that purpose and the current technologies in linux land illustrate that fact to no end.

I don't see lots of Linux users absolutely desperate to start ditching what they have to use ZFS.

That's just plain wrong. ZFS is working fine on BSD and OS X.

I'm afraid you've been at the Sun koolaid drinking fountain. ZFS is not implemented in a working fashion in any way shape or form on OS X (Sun always seems to get very excited about OS X for some reason) or FreeBSD. They are exceptionally experimental, and pre-alpha, and integrating it with existing filesystems, volume managers and RAID systems is going to be exceptionally difficult unless they just go ZFS completely.

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.

So what? You're sitting on a Solaris box. When you have HPFS, LVM, RAID and other partitions on your system and you're working out how to consolidate them (or you're a non-Solaris OS developer trying to work that out), give us a call.

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

RE[3]: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Fri 25th Apr 2008 02:51 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS is a dead end."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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

Errrrr, no it isn't. It's extremely experimental and barely functional, and on limited architectures at that. Hell, even running it on 32-bit systems will leave you with something exceptionally borked. ZFS also needs exceptional tuning to work with non-Solaris kernels. There is a huge class of hardware it simply will not run on - probably ever.

I've seen some people wandering around assuming that they can just run ZFS in FreeBSD, and run it in production. That's just.........scary.

Edited 2008-04-25 02:56 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2