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 436409
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[5]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Thu 12th Aug 2010 15:23 UTC 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