Linked by Thom Holwerda on Wed 11th Aug 2010 19:14 UTC, submitted by Cytor
Sun Solaris, OpenSolaris Due to me not working for OSNews these past eight weeks, I've been a bit out of the loop, as I didn't really follow technology news. I did notice that a lot is going on in OpenSolaris land, and today, Oracle has outlined what it has planned for Solaris 11 - and according to some, the fears about OpenSolaris' future were justified.
Thread beginning with comment 436349
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Bill Shooter of Bul
Member since:
2006-07-14

Linux really doen't have anything that matches OpenSolaris ZFS in ease of use and features.


Nothing that is production ready. Wait a year and BTRFS will be here. If you are looking to the future with your data storage needs, BTRFS is a really good reason to *not* go to ZFS, unless you are already running Solaris everywhere.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really.
by tyrione on Thu 12th Aug 2010 04:25 in reply to "RE[2]: Is it bad? Not really."
tyrione Member since:
2005-11-21

"Linux really doen't have anything that matches OpenSolaris ZFS in ease of use and features.


Nothing that is production ready. Wait a year and BTRFS will be here. If you are looking to the future with your data storage needs, BTRFS is a really good reason to *not* go to ZFS, unless you are already running Solaris everywhere.
"

Who makes BTRFS? Oracle.

Reply Parent Score: 4

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

While the project was started by Oracle, the code is GPL and already merged int the mainline kernel. Josef Bacik of Red hat is one of the fulltime developers ( along with two others from oracle ). There is widespread plans for adoption from many distros. While an outright Oracle drop of the project would delay it, I doubt they would be able to stop it.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really.
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:18 in reply to "RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Who makes BTRFS? Oracle.

I take it the implication there is that Oracle might stop development? The code is already in mainline and is also being developed by Red Hat and others so Oracle aren't going to put the genie back in that bottle.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Thu 12th Aug 2010 05:45 in reply to "RE[2]: Is it bad? Not really."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

"Linux really doen't have anything that matches OpenSolaris ZFS in ease of use and features.


Nothing that is production ready. Wait a year and BTRFS will be here. If you are looking to the future with your data storage needs, BTRFS is a really good reason to *not* go to ZFS, unless you are already running Solaris everywhere.
"

Btrfs is at least 5 years off from being a replacement for ZFS as it stands today. Btrfs is not anywhere near the same league as ZFS right now. It's absolutely hilarious when people try to suggest "some future version of" Btrfs as a viable alternative for ZFS of today.

Reply Parent Score: 5

Bill Shooter of Bul Member since:
2006-07-14

Technology always moves faster than you think. In planning adoption for a storage technology, you'd have to be completely naive to not evaluate the future of the product you are going to use for your valuable data. There is a good reason why people dropped plans for supporting Reiser 4. If you really look at the design of the two File Systems, its hard not to be bullish on BTRFS. Everyone who is already on Linux will also have ZFS like capabilities on all their storage devices. That's huge.

As for timing I guessed a year. Maybe two, depending on your intended use. If Ubuntu makes it their default file system, as suggested, You'll get a lot of bug fixes pretty quickly. Just hope they submit those back to the mainline ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really.
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:19 in reply to "RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Btrfs is at least 5 years off from being a replacement for ZFS as it stands today. Btrfs is not anywhere near the same league as ZFS right now.

I know. Btrfs might actually have a fighting chance of running on a NAS box.

Reply Parent Score: 2

spanglywires Member since:
2006-10-23

"Linux really doen't have anything that matches OpenSolaris ZFS in ease of use and features.


Nothing that is production ready. Wait a year and BTRFS will be here. If you are looking to the future with your data storage needs, BTRFS is a really good reason to *not* go to ZFS, unless you are already running Solaris everywhere.
"

You do know btrfs is *only* a filesystem right?

ZFS is a rampant layering violation ;)

ZFS is more than just an fs, its a volume manager too. How are you going to RAID your btrfs? Through mdadm? Theres a good reason not to use Linux in the enterprise straight away.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really.
by zdzichu on Thu 12th Aug 2010 11:48 in reply to "RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really."
zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Through bultin multidevice support (raid0,1,10,5,6) in btrfs. I suggest you should educate yourself a little before posting rants: http://events.linuxfoundation.org/slides/2010/linuxcon2010_mason.pd...

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Thu 12th Aug 2010 15:41 in reply to "RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

ZFS is a rampant layering violation ;)


No, ZFS is a re-orginisation of the layers to better fit the use-cases of today, instead of carrying on with the out-dated layering schemes from 30 years ago. ;)

Big difference. ;) There are still layers in ZFS. But there's only 4 instead of the 8 or 9 that "traditional" storage stacks have.

Think of it as the TCP/IP of the storage world. Afterall, TCP/IP is very much a "rampant layering violation" compared to the OSI network model. Yet no one has any issues with using it, and many even find it to be a better stack than the OSI one.

ZFS is more than just an fs, its a volume manager too. How are you going to RAID your btrfs? Through mdadm? There's a good reason not to use Linux in the enterprise straight away.


Btrfs supports RAID0, RAID1, and RAID10 directly "in the filesystem". It's even part of the mkfs.btrfs command (now, which is the real layering violation?). And Btrfs supports sub-volumes, making it a volume manager.

The problem is that it's not all that well integrated with the rest of the system (md/lvm, etc). And it doesn't support RAID levels above 1. And the tools for working with it are only just now getting to be usable (finally, a single btrfsctl command for everything, similar to the zfs command).

Give it 5 years, and it might be a usable alternative. Hopefully, by then, the whole Linux storage stack will be usable in enterprise-y situations.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[3]: Is it bad? Not really.
by Luminair on Thu 12th Aug 2010 17:20 in reply to "RE[2]: Is it bad? Not really."
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

btrfs is limited by the laws of physics. it cant catch up to zfs in a year.

assume the purchase of sun by oracle has delayed zfs development by a year. btrfs still has multiple years of development to go before it matches zfs features and stability.

Reply Parent Score: 2