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 310905
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Comment by agrouf
by DirtyHarry on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 19:27 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by agrouf"
DirtyHarry
Member since:
2006-01-31

[q]I too am impatient with the state of Linux storage management. For better or worse, I just don't think it is a priority for the mainline kernel development crew, or Red Hat, which, like it or not, is all that matters in the commercial space. I think ext3 is a stable, well-tuned filesystem, but I find LVM and MD to be clumsy and fragile. Once ext4 is decently stable, I would love to see work on a Real Volume Manager (tm).


I think you wrong here. I do think the Linux kernel community is aware of the desperate need of a 'kick-ass-enterprise-ready-filesystem-like-ZFS'. A lot of people where waiting for the arrival of Reiser4, but we all know how that ended :-)

Ext4 is just a 'let's be pragmatic' solution: we need something better than Ext3.

ZFS for Linux is (besides license issues) a 'no-go' because of the (VFS) layering stuff.

But I think that there's hope: BTRFS. It doesn't sound as sexy as ZFS, but it has a lot to offer when it becomes stable and available. I'm following the development closely, and I get the idea that Chris Mason makes sure to not fall into the 'reiser trap' by communicating in a constructive matter with the rest of the kernel community.

Although not ready in the near future (read 2008), I personally have high expectations of BTRFS. And I believe it will become the default filesystem for many distributions when it arrives.

Regards Harry

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by agrouf
by Weeman on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 19:49 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by agrouf"
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

The problem with BTRFS is that a whole team worked for several years on ZFS to get it to the current point, while BTRFS still has only one guy behind it (as far as I know). While there may be first workable prototypes pretty soon, the fleshing out of details (usually things work nice on paper, but practically prove to be crappy and need to be redesigned) and fine-tuning is going to need LOTS of time.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Comment by agrouf
by jwwf on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 20:26 in reply to "RE[3]: Comment by agrouf"
jwwf Member since:
2006-01-19

I think you wrong here. I do think the Linux kernel community is aware of the desperate need of a 'kick-ass-enterprise-ready-filesystem-like-ZFS'. A lot of people where waiting for the arrival of Reiser4, but we all know how that ended :-)

Ext4 is just a 'let's be pragmatic' solution: we need something better than Ext3.


I hope you are right. To be clear, I think ext4 could turn out to be an excellent incremental improvement.

But I think that there's hope: BTRFS. It doesn't sound as sexy as ZFS, but it has a lot to offer when it becomes stable and available. I'm following the development closely, and I get the idea that Chris Mason makes sure to not fall into the 'reiser trap' by communicating in a constructive matter with the rest of the kernel community.


Yes, I hope this turns out as well, since it seems to bypass some of the MD and LVM cruft. What I find interesting about BTRFS is that it is an Oracle project, and yet better storage for unstructured data is not really in Oracle's interest--what they would like is to get your unstructured data into their db.

Note: Not a conspiracy theory! I just think it is unusual.

Also, what weeman said ;)

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Comment by agrouf
by sbergman27 on Tue 22nd Apr 2008 20:45 in reply to "RE[4]: Comment by agrouf"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

Yes, I hope this turns out as well, since it seems to bypass some of the MD and LVM cruft.

Not so much "bypassing" as "working more closely with":

http://lwn.net/Articles/265533/

The article to which the linked comment by Chris Mason is attached is also worth a read for anyone interested in btrfs:

http://lwn.net/Articles/265257/

Edited 2008-04-22 20:47 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2