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 450113
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Tue 16th Nov 2010 11:51 UTC 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[3]: ZFS
by jessesmith on Tue 16th Nov 2010 13:30 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
jessesmith Member since:
2010-03-11

That doesn't make any sense at all, ZFS is open source. It's available on FreeBSD and there is a module in the works for Linux. Oracle could stop developing it today and ZFS would continue to be improved in OpenIndiana, FreeBSD and (probably) Linux.

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[3]: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Tue 16th Nov 2010 14:26 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

I dont agree with your post. I suggest you stop worrying about ZFS and start to worry about BTRFS instead.

One of the great things about ZFS is because your data is safe with ZFS. I doubt your data is safe with BTRFS, as your data is not safe with XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, hardware raid-5 or 6, etc - which is showed in current research. I therefore doubt BTRFS keeps your data safe.

Why do you think ZFS is slower than BTRFS? Because ZFS does those checksums to guarantee your data is safe.

People that prioritize data safety, will surely continue to use ZFS. BTRFS is just another Linux filesystem - and as we all know, Linux filesystems are not really ready for Enterprise use, as they scale bad. You want to see links and articles about this?

Reply Parent Score: 3

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[3]: ZFS
by segedunum on Tue 16th Nov 2010 19:03 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
segedunum Member since:
2005-07-06

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

So did Sun.........

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: ZFS
by sorpigal on Tue 16th Nov 2010 19:08 in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
sorpigal Member since:
2005-11-02

What would make the most sense, now, is to shoehorn ZFS into Linux the way Novell put NSS into Linux (ie, in a way which sucks and is largely impossible to replicate outside their own distro) and then drop btrfs like a hot-potato. "Want ZFS Linux? Only sold by Oracle, baby!" I can see it now.

Reply Parent Score: 3