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 450123
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[2]: ZFS
by Laurence on Tue 16th Nov 2010 12:53 UTC 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[4]: ZFS
by Laurence on Tue 16th Nov 2010 14:41 in reply to "RE[3]: ZFS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

But my point is unless ZFS's Linux module is GPL (ie a complete re-write) then Linux is unlikely to adopt it as standard over BtrFS.

So should Oracle drop ZFS (hypothetical question i know) will there be enough community developers to keep ZFS alive?

Maybe I'm worrying over nothing. I very much hope that's the case, but I guess only time will tell

Reply Parent Score: 2

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[4]: ZFS
by Laurence on Tue 16th Nov 2010 14:48 in reply to "RE[3]: ZFS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

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.

You've missed my point. I'm not worried about my data (as I said when I opened this discussion, I'm somewhat of a ZFS fanboy). I'm worried about the future development of ZFS.


Why do you think ZFS is slower than BTRFS?

I never said nor even suggested it was slower.

BTRFS is just another Linux filesystem - and as we all know, Linux filesystems are not really ready for Enterprise use, as they scale bad.

BtrFS isn't just "another Linux file system" though. It's built by Oracle and Oracle are all about salability and enterprise use. BtrFS is also the underlying file system behind Oracles distributed file system (the name of which escapes me). So Oracle do have a vested interest in making BtrFS work as much as they do with ZFS.

You want to see links and articles about this?

Actually yes please. Not because I dispute your claims but more because I'm a geek and enjoy this kind of reading material ;)

Reply Parent Score: 3