Star Solaris Filesystem Choices
Linked by John Finigan on Mon 21st Apr 2008 19:00 UTC
SUN Microsystems 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.
E-mail Print r 8   · Read More · 87 Comment(s) http://osne.ws/f69
Thread beginning with comment 311529
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Arun
Member since:
2005-07-07

That's absolutely great, and no one says that things shouldn't improve but that's a very, very limited market. It's even more limited if ZFS cannot work with those systems, or LVM, MD or other filesystems transparently - hence the layering violation query.



Again with this lame FUD.


I'm not. I'm just trying to be realistic about what ZFS solves, where the problems with storage really lie and whether people are so fed up that they are screaming to move to ZFS. Just don't see it.


No you are not. No one is claiming ZFS solves all problems. That was your strawman. Sun sells SAM QFS, Lustre and ZFS. Even Sun doesn't think ZFS solves all.

Edited 2008-04-25 23:18 UTC

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2

segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Again with this lame FUD.

People don't dump existing filesystems, operating systems and storage solutions just because ZFS is on the scene sweetheart. If it doesn't work with what you already have it is of pretty limited use. That's why Microsoft provides the ability to convert to successive NTFS filesystems, and from FAT, why the ext3 filesystem in Linux is an evolution of ext2 and why ext4 follows on from it, and why brand new filesystems like Reiser4 that aren't backwards compatible have a hard time getting usage.

If that irritates you then welcome to the real world.

"I'm not. I'm just trying to be realistic about what ZFS solves, where the problems with storage really lie and whether people are so fed up that they are screaming to move to ZFS. Just don't see it.


No you are not. No one is claiming ZFS solves all problems. That was your strawman. "
I left what you quoted of my comment in so that you could go back and read it again ;-). I didn't say that people are claiming that ZFS solves all the problems at all (although sometimes I wonder). It's ironic that is a strawman, because that's not what was written at all - as you can see.

All I said was that the problems that ZFS purports to solve that some people think are revolutionary in some way are not all that important, and more importantly, they aren't important enough to dump what they have and move to something new and incompatible. You should have more than enough reading matter here now to work out why that is.

Reply Parent Bookmark Score: 2