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 436398
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

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[5]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Thu 12th Aug 2010 15:23 in reply to "RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Until it gets support for RAID levels above 1, it'll be hard to even consider it for a lot of storage applications. The patches for this have been "just around the corner" for over a year now.

Until it gets support for deduplication, it'll be hard to consider it for a lot of storage applications. There aren't even any plans for adding this at this time.

Until it gets support for proper volume management (or better integration with LVM/md) it won't be a good fit for use in storage systems with 10/20/30/hundreds of disks.

Actually, until Linux gets a storage stack comparable to ZFS in OSol/FreeBSD or GEOM in FreeBSD, it's not a good fit for many storage applications.

Maybe for desktops with 1-4 drives, or for laptops with 1-2 drives, or for small servers with 1-4 drives, Btrfs may be useful (nothing but RAID10). But for large storage servers with 24+ drive bays, or for storage arrays that can handle multiple 48-bay enclosures, it's just nowhere near ready.

Anyone who believes otherwise is seriously deluding themselves.

Reply Parent Score: 4

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

Maybe for desktops with 1-4 drives, or for laptops with 1-2 drives, or for small servers with 1-4 drives, Btrfs may be useful (nothing but RAID10). But for large storage servers with 24+ drive bays, or for storage arrays that can handle multiple 48-bay enclosures, it's just nowhere near ready.


Ahh.. Now we understand each other. I think its massive adoption on "small" servers will drive its adoption and over take ZFS on larger systems. That's the way it works. Get something used by the masses, and it finds its way everywhere into everything. Linux, windows, x86, English, Rap Music

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[6]: Is it bad? Not really.
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 18:03 in reply to "RE[5]: Is it bad? Not really."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Maybe for desktops with 1-4 drives, or for laptops with 1-2 drives, or for small servers with 1-4 drives, Btrfs may be useful (nothing but RAID10). But for large storage servers with 24+ drive bays, or for storage arrays that can handle multiple 48-bay enclosures, it's just nowhere near ready.

Linux is already in all of those locations sunshine, and anything that large will be using hardware RAID of some kind so ZFS as anything more than a basic filesystem doesn't even come into it. When it's ready Btrfs will merely start taking over the role that other storage layers are performing in Linux right now.

The laughable thing is you're making it sound as if Solaris and ZFS is going to have to be 'replaced'. Solaris already has been and ZFS has a rather pitiful installed based when it comes to storage.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Thu 12th Aug 2010 15:34 in reply to "RE[4]: Is it bad? Not really."
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

The other issue to consider is that there is a large industry around ZFS-based storage solutions, and absolutely 0 companies using Btrfs as the basis for a storage solution. Someone looking for a turnkey solution, for a simple "plug it in and go" box, it's easy to end up with a box that uses ZFS internally (Nexenta, GreenBytes, even FreeNAS, for example). There's nothing like that available for Btrfs.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[6]: Is it bad? Not really.
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:27 in reply to "RE[5]: Is it bad? Not really."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

The other issue to consider is that there is a large industry around ZFS-based storage solutions.......

Is there? I must have blinked because I missed it.

The storage industry consists of established players using things like VxFX and clustered filesystems. Sun came late into the storage market with ZFS hoping to capture some of that established market share as a cheaper alternative, and they've had rather mixed success.

Someone looking for a turnkey solution, for a simple "plug it in and go" box, it's easy to end up with a box that uses ZFS internally (Nexenta, GreenBytes, even FreeNAS, for example).

Hmmmm, so that's what you consider to be a 'storage industry'? I'm afraid installing Nexenta or FreeNAS yourself is not a storage industry.

All (and I mean all) of the 'turnkey', small and cheap commercial NAS and storage boxes I have seen use Linux and generally XFS as filesystem. Not a single one runs Solaris or ZFS. Btrfs already has a ready and established market that Linux itself is already in.

Reply Parent Score: 3