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 311516
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[6]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Weeman on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:12 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: ZFS is a dead end."
Weeman
Member since:
2006-03-20

ZFS follows in that fine tradition as it simply will not run on 32-bit systems.

Have you actually ever used ZFS, or are you just a naysayer going on half-assed theory?

I guess when I'm booting OpenSolaris on my ZFS root pool into 32bit mode, e.g. to test driver code, I must be imagining it all.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[7]: ZFS is a dead end.
by segedunum on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:28 in reply to "RE[6]: ZFS is a dead end."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

I guess when I'm booting OpenSolaris on my ZFS root pool into 32bit mode, e.g. to test driver code, I must be imagining it all.

Do you actually run it on a 32-bit x86 system, or do you have trouble reading? Even Sun themselves recommend you don't run ZFS on 32-bit Solaris systems, mostly related to the large amount of memory it likes to consume for caching.

If a filesystem doesn't run well, it doesn't run at all.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Arun on Fri 25th Apr 2008 22:54 in reply to "RE[7]: ZFS is a dead end."
Arun Member since:
2005-07-07

Do you actually run it on a 32-bit x86 system, or do you have trouble reading? Even Sun themselves recommend you don't run ZFS on 32-bit Solaris systems, mostly related to the large amount of memory it likes to consume for caching.

If a filesystem doesn't run well, it doesn't run at all.


Can you provide some proof? A link to some docs on Sun's website where this limitation is spelled out.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: ZFS is a dead end.
by Weeman on Fri 25th Apr 2008 23:36 in reply to "RE[7]: ZFS is a dead end."
Weeman Member since:
2006-03-20

Do you actually run it on a 32-bit x86 system, or do you have trouble reading? Even Sun themselves recommend you don't run ZFS on 32-bit Solaris systems, mostly related to the large amount of memory it likes to consume for caching.

If I boot the 32bit kernel, I'm in 32bit mode. Whether the machine has a 32bit or 64bit processor matters exactly squat.

And I've run it in VirtualBox in a VM with 512MB RAM, yet Solaris didn't shit itself. At all.

Again, did you ever use the filesystem (under proper conditions) or are you just spewing crap? I figure the latter.

If a filesystem doesn't run well, it doesn't run at all.

If I roll my eyes more, they'll fall out of their sockets.

Edited 2008-04-25 23:36 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 1