Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 15th Nov 2010 23:37 UTC, submitted by comay
Oracle and SUN Today Oracle released its latest version of Solaris technology, the Oracle Solaris 11 Express 2010.11 release. It includes a large number of new features not found in either Oracle Solaris 10 or previous OpenSolaris releases including ZFS encryption and deduplication, network-based packaging and provisioning systems, network virtualization, optimized I/O for NUMA platforms and optimized platform support including support for Intel's latest Nehalem and SPARC T3. In addition, Oracle Solaris 10 support is available from within a container/zone so migration of existing systems is greatly simplified. The release is available under a variety of licenses including a supported commercial license on a wide variety of x86 and SPARC platforms.
Thread beginning with comment 450109
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
ZFS
by Laurence on Tue 16th Nov 2010 11:28 UTC
Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

I've become somewhat of a ZFS fanboy in recent years but got turned off OpenSolaris when Oracle took over and the whole hoopla kicked off about the state of OpenSolaris.
Now it's looking ever more likely that ZFS will be binned as Oracle already have a vested interest in BtrFS, Linux (due to CDDL vs GPL licensing) favours BtrFS and even Apple have dropped their implementation in OS X.

It seems (aside *Solaris), FreeBSD stands alone in it's support for ZFS, and that worries me a lot.

I'm sure BtrFS excels in many ways but ZFS has already been adopted on my home file server, I've grown comfortable with it and it's (for me at least) proven itself. So the last thing I want to do is migrate to another platform.

tl;dr version: I'm really worried about the future of ZFS.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Tue 16th Nov 2010 11:51 in reply to "ZFS"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I dont get it. What is it to worry about the future of ZFS?


I mean, BTRFS is a joke. Sure, it will have lots of cool features (copying every ZFS function) but that is far away in the future. As of now, BTRFS is unstable and corrupts data. Have you not read the BTRFS mail lists? I would never ever trust my data on BTRFS, maybe in 10 years. But not now.

And, why should Oracle devote resources to make BTRFS better than ZFS? It will take many years before BTRFS catches up on where ZFS is today. But in 10 years, ZFS will have got much better than today. In short, BTRFS will never catch up.

Oracle earns money on ZFS today, they sell ZFS products today. Why would Oracle can ZFS, and wait 5 years until BTRFS catches up on where ZFS is today, and then wait another 5 years before BTRFS have surpasses ZFS - in total 10 years before Oracle can earn money?

From a business perspective, if you have two similar products - one mature and superior and already earns money, and one in alpha stage and buggy and only consumes money - you should kill of the weaker product. It is a simple as that.

No, the most logical step, from a pure business perspective, would be to kill BTRFS - dont you agree? Actually,
"I'm really worried about the future of BTRFS".

I really dont understand your view point.

Reply Parent Score: 5

RE[2]: ZFS
by Laurence on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:53 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

The point being if only Solaris is supporting ZFS (and taking into account Oracle doesn't favour open source like Sun did), then ZFS might quickly become obscure tech only available to Oracle licensees.

As BtrFS is GPL, I could see many people favouring BtrFS for the long game than an increasingly closed ZFS for the short game. In fact we already see this with Linux (though Linuxes situation differs slightly due to license incomparability so improving BtrFS might prove quicker than reverse engineering ZFS for the sake of having GPL code), but thankfully I'm not loyal to Linux like many of my fellow open source advocates are. But lets face it, as much as I like Unix, Linux does have massive clout these days so there is already a massive demand for BtrFS.

So if 5 years down the line, the majority of the industry outside of Oracle are favouring BtrFS, then why would Oracle care about ZFS internally? Particularly when I'm yet to see any evidence that they're migrating their own databases from Redhat to Solaris (or at least they're not on any of the servers my organisation leases from them)

There has been plenty of occasions where the more mature of two technologies have fallen out of favour. So I wouldn't say ZFS was sitting comfortably just because it has a few years on it's rivals. If anything, I would say it's fucture was uncertain because FreeBSD is the only non-Oracle OS that seems to properly support that file system.

Edited 2010-11-16 13:10 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS
by nt_jerkface on Tue 16th Nov 2010 17:45 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
nt_jerkface Member since:
2009-08-26


No, the most logical step, from a pure business perspective, would be to kill BTRFS - dont you agree? Actually,
"I'm really worried about the future of BTRFS".


That does make business sense given they are investing in Solaris to make it more competitive with Linux.

Why should they also fund the development of tech that improves Linux? Funding BTRFS made more sense before the purchase of Sun.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ZFS
by Dubhthach on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:04 in reply to "ZFS"
Dubhthach Member since:
2006-01-12

... and even Apple have dropped their implementation in OS X.


ZFS was originaly touted on Apple website for one of previous releases of OSX (10.5 or 10.6 can't remember) Of course it didn't help that Jonathan Schwartz had to open his big mouth and announce that it was gonna be default filesystem in OSX. Jobs just doesn't like other people pre-announcing stuff. Given the rapprochement between Oracle/Apple over Java we might be lucky and see ZFS as part of 10.7 (lion).

That's more of a pipedream on my part but you never know. The recent "back to Mac" event said very little about Lion other then about some of the GUI stuff and the release name. Given that OSX currently uses DTrace and Solaris NFSv4 stack (client/server) I wouldn't be surprised if ZFS snuck back in. Helps that the NetApp case has ended. Plus ZFS is even better now then it was two years ago with stuff like DeDup and Crypto now included.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS
by MacMan on Tue 16th Nov 2010 13:13 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
MacMan Member since:
2006-11-19

Given the rapprochement between Oracle/Apple over Java we might be lucky and see ZFS as part of 10.7 (lion).


That would be freaking nice!

The other features from Solaris I'd like to see for Lion are:
1: Solaris memory manager
2: Solaris scheduler
3: Solaris network stack
4: Solaris process management
5: Solaris init system

Eh, screw it, I'd like to see everything beneath the window server replaced with Solaris - now that would rock.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[2]: ZFS
by kaiwai on Tue 16th Nov 2010 13:26 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

ZFS was originaly touted on Apple website for one of previous releases of OSX (10.5 or 10.6 can't remember) Of course it didn't help that Jonathan Schwartz had to open his big mouth and announce that it was gonna be default filesystem in OSX. Jobs just doesn't like other people pre-announcing stuff. Given the rapprochement between Oracle/Apple over Java we might be lucky and see ZFS as part of 10.7 (lion).

That's more of a pipedream on my part but you never know. The recent "back to Mac" event said very little about Lion other then about some of the GUI stuff and the release name. Given that OSX currently uses DTrace and Solaris NFSv4 stack (client/server) I wouldn't be surprised if ZFS snuck back in. Helps that the NetApp case has ended. Plus ZFS is even better now then it was two years ago with stuff like DeDup and Crypto now included.


From what I understood it all came down to patents and licensing plus other stuff - stuff that could have over come if Sun (and subsequently Oracle) had the will power to do so. Even if they did get ZFS working with Mac OS X the problem I found when using it with OpenSolaris was that the performance was terrible on anything less than 2GB of RAM using a 32bit kernel on a low powered machine - which would have pretty much killed off using it on the MacBook Air. What Apple needs isn't something revolutionary but rather something that is evolutionary and does what is required without too much fanfare.

One possible replacement for HFS+ that comes to mind could be HAMMERFS from DragonflyBSD:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HAMMER

It includes many cool features and is licensed under a liberal license which will allow Apple to bring it over to XNU and make the necessary enhancements for Finder integration. Sure, it isn't a massive leap in the case of ZFS but the file system sticks to the tried and true way of doing things - I'd sooner have that than risk a jump into the unknown for the sake of having something on the bleeding edge.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ZFS
by whartung on Tue 16th Nov 2010 18:13 in reply to "ZFS"
whartung Member since:
2005-07-06

Now it's looking ever more likely that ZFS will be binned as Oracle already have a vested interest in BtrFS, Linux (due to CDDL vs GPL licensing) favours BtrFS and even Apple have dropped their implementation in OS X.


You do realize that if Oracle wanted to include ZFS in to Linux, they can GPL the whole kit tomorrow. They could stop funding/working on BtrFS, GPL ZFS and Linux could run it merry way with ZFS.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ZFS
by Luminair on Tue 16th Nov 2010 21:19 in reply to "ZFS"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

ugh, backwards. oracle sponsored btrfs as a direct answer to zfs, right? because they had linux, and didn't have solaris, right?

so see anything strange about your concern for zfs? anything sticking out here? read the news lately?

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ZFS
by flanque on Wed 17th Nov 2010 03:22 in reply to "ZFS"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

I wouldn't worry. UFS has had its time and as others have implied ZFS is a very mature, well supported and integrated filesystem for Solaris.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE: ZFS
by phoenix on Wed 17th Nov 2010 22:41 in reply to "ZFS"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Now it's looking ever more likely that ZFS will be binned as Oracle already have a vested interest in BtrFS, Linux (due to CDDL vs GPL licensing) favours BtrFS and even Apple have dropped their implementation in OS X.


BtrFS is still 5 years away from achieving feature parity with ZFSv15 (latest available in FreeBSD 8.x), possibly longer to reach parity with ZFSv31 (latest available from Oracle).

There's no way they'd turf ZFS and try to switch all their development resources to BtrFS.

After all, that eliminates a reason to use Solaris, which eliminates the need for all those expensive licenses, and all those sales of expensive hardware. ;)

tl;dr version: I'm really worried about the future of ZFS.


ZFS is opensource, it's not going anywhere. ZFSv28, which includes everything except crypto support, is already "in the wild". Oracle can't close it up and make it disappear. There are even experimental patches for using ZFSv28 in FreeBSD 9-CURRENT, with the goal of having it integrated into the 9.0 release in 2011.

Nexenta is available now with ZFS. It's not going anywhere.

GreenBytes uses ZFS in their storage products. They aren't going anywhere anytime soon.

There are others. It's too late to put the genie back in the bottle. And it's too long to wait for BtrFS to catch up.

There are even two separate projects underway to bring ZFS to Linux as an out-of-tree kernel module.

IOW, there's nothing to worry about.

Edited 2010-11-17 22:42 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[2]: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Thu 18th Nov 2010 10:44 in reply to "RE: ZFS"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Also, ZFS gives very good data safety. Here are some problems hardware raid Enterprise had
http://www.mysqlperformanceblog.com/2010/11/16/on-the-perils-of-uni...

Reply Parent Score: 2