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 436678
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Is it bad? Not really.
by phoenix on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:35 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Is it bad? Not really."
phoenix
Member since:
2005-07-11

Who's talking about "small and cheap" or NAS? That's the home market, not the commercial market.

If it has fewer than 12 drives in it, it's not a storage box worth mentioning here.

Btrfs is nowhere to be found when you get into real storage solutions. The NetApp, EMC, Veritas, Greenbytes market, not the home "2-drives in a box with an ethernet port" market.

You can spend a couple hundred grand for an iSCSI/FC box from NetApp or EMC. Or less for a Greenbytes box using ZFS+. Or less for a Solaris box using ZFS. Or even less for a custom white-box with OSol/FreeBSD using ZFS.

I've yet to see a single product in this area that boasts about using Linux and/or Btrfs.

Sure, maybe Linux has taken over the "2 drives in a box with an ethernet port" market. But who cares? That's not was enterprises, businesses (even medium-sized ones), or even school districts are looking at.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Is it bad? Not really.
by segedunum on Fri 13th Aug 2010 17:55 in reply to "RE[7]: Is it bad? Not really."
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

Who's talking about "small and cheap" or NAS? That's the home market, not the commercial market.

You specifically used the phrase 'turnkey' and started talking about FreeNAS and Nexenta probably because you know Solaris and ZFS aren't there at that end of the market, and it's more of a small business storage market these days.

Btrfs is nowhere to be found when you get into real storage solutions. The NetApp, EMC, Veritas, Greenbytes market, not the home "2-drives in a box with an ethernet port" market.

Neither is ZFS. NetApp, EMC and Veritas are the only companies worth mentioning there and Sun with ZFS are merely bit-part players trying to get a piece of the action with something cheaper. They are irrelevant.

You're trying to create some 'enterprise storage market here that Solaris and ZFS are a part of and it just isn't there.

Or less for a Solaris box using ZFS. Or even less for a custom white-box with OSol/FreeBSD using ZFS.

That's the small and cheap NAS market that you claim that we're not talking about where Solaris and ZFS are not present. It's all dominated by Linux systems.

I've yet to see a single product in this area that boasts about using Linux and/or Btrfs.

You wouldn't. They use Linux and XFS, LVM and RAID generally. That will change with Btrfs. Linux is already there. It's pointless talking about Btrfs because it will appear by default.

Sure, maybe Linux has taken over the "2 drives in a box with an ethernet port" market. But who cares? That's not was enterprises, businesses (even medium-sized ones), or even school districts are looking at.

Well, yes, that's what they are looking at because one of Sun's goals for ZFS was to make dynamic storage cheaper as storage hardware has got cheaper. Unfortunately for Sun they're caught somewhere in between NetApp, Veritas and EMC and all those smaller 4, 8 12 or more disk storage boxes from manufacturers that all run Linux, just like they were with PC hardware. That's probably why Sun hasn't done too well.

Edited 2010-08-13 18:08 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[9]: Is it bad? Not really.
by Kebabbert on Sat 14th Aug 2010 11:22 in reply to "RE[8]: Is it bad? Not really."
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Neither is ZFS. NetApp, EMC and Veritas are the only companies worth mentioning there and Sun with ZFS are merely bit-part players trying to get a piece of the action with something cheaper. They are irrelevant.

Apparently, NetApp is dead scared of open ZFS, as NetApp sued Sun and tried to stop ZFS. NetApp has some expensive storage servers, and if ZFS can do everything for free or a much lower price, I understand why NetApp sued Sun. Just recently NetApp sued another ZFS based storage company, according to the news. Maybe you missed that. There are several storage companies selling ZFS based machines. For instance, OnStor.
http://www.channelinsider.com/c/a/Storage/OnStor-Pantera-Storage-LS...

I think it would be better if NetApp spent all resources on coming up with new cool tech, instead of spending them by sueing others. NetApp sued Sun in a state famously used by Patent Trolls, despite the fact that Sun and NetApp headquarters are close to each other in another state.





"I've yet to see a single product in this area that boasts about using Linux and/or Btrfs.

You wouldn't. They use Linux and XFS, LVM and RAID generally. That will change with Btrfs. Linux is already there. It's pointless talking about Btrfs because it will appear by default.
"

Personally, I can not recommend XFS and Raid solutions, as they are unsafe. Your data is not safe with them solutions.

Here is a link to a PhD thesis, where the researcher concludes that XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, etc are really bad with respect to data safety:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-r...

"All the file systems shared...ad hoc failure handling and a great deal of illogical inconsistency in failure policy...such inconsistency leads to substantially different detection and recovery strategies under similar fault scenarios, resulting in unpredictable and often undesirable fault-handling strategies...We observe little tolerance to transient failures;...none of the file systems can recover from partial disk failures, due to a lack of in-disk redundancy. "

Avoid XFS and JFS.





And Raid5 and Raid6 are not better. There is a whole site with lots of technical articles by sysadmins, dedicated to explain how bad Raid5 is.
http://www.baarf.com/




More research on Raid:
http://www.cs.wisc.edu/adsl/Publications/corruption-fast08.pdf

"Detecting and recovering from data corruption requires protection techniques beyond those provided by the disk drive. In fact, basic protection schemes such as RAID [13] may also be unable to detect these problems.
..
As we discuss later, checksums do not protect against all forms of corruption"






Research shows that Raid6 is also bad:
http://kernel.org/pub/linux/kernel/people/hpa/raid6.pdf
"The paper explains that the best RAID-6 can do is use probabilistic methods to distinguish between single and dual-disk corruption, eg. "there are 95% chances it is single-disk corruption so I am going to fix it assuming that, but there are 5% chances I am going to actually corrupt more data, I just can't tell". I wouldn't want to rely on a RAID controller that takes gambles :-)"


I have much more research articles on this. Just tell me if you want to see read more on how unsafe your data is.




From above examples with all common filesystems ext3, ReiserFS, NTFS, and hardware raid5, etc - you can not just add some checksums all over the place into BTRFS and expect to get data integrity. It is very hard to do it correctly.

But ZFS is another thing! Researchers tried out ZFS and it passed all tests. This is the single reason to use ZFS: your data is much safer. The performance is not interesting. Is your data safe? Here is a link to a research paper on the safety of ZFS:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/zfs-data-integrity-tested/811

Reply Parent Score: 2