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 450134
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Tue 16th Nov 2010 14:22 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: ZFS"
Kebabbert
Member since:
2007-07-27

the problem I found when using ZFS with OpenSolaris was that the performance was terrible on anything less than 2GB of RAM using a 32bit kernel on a low powered machine

The problem was the 32bit cpu. ZFS is 128 bit, and does not like 32 bit cpus, performance will suck. I used 32bit Pentium4 and 1GB RAM for a year, and I got 20-30MB/sec with a ZFS raid with 4 discs. This sucks indeed.

If you use 64 bit cpus, then performance will be normal.

The reason ZFS gets slow, is because ZFS does lots of checksumming and computations with respect to data integrity. ZFS wants to guarantee that your data is not subject to bit rot or silent corruption. Other filesystems or solutions, dont do that. Why do you think they are much faster than ZFS? Because they dont do the expensive calculations with respect to data safety!

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: ZFS
by kaiwai on Tue 16th Nov 2010 17:30 in reply to "RE[3]: ZFS"
kaiwai Member since:
2005-07-06

The problem was the 32bit cpu. ZFS is 128 bit, and does not like 32 bit cpus, performance will suck. I used 32bit Pentium4 and 1GB RAM for a year, and I got 20-30MB/sec with a ZFS raid with 4 discs. This sucks indeed.

If you use 64 bit cpus, then performance will be normal.


But on low powered 64bit processors such as the MacBook Air 1.4Ghz the experience isn't exactly going to be all that pleasant to say the least. The amount of memory is a big killer - give it 4GB of memory and it flies but I say 2GB minimum but even then it isn't all too pleasant. It is a great file system designed for a large system with a tonne of memory but for something that is low powered requiring something light weight it is probably not the ideal file system to use.

The reason ZFS gets slow, is because ZFS does lots of checksumming and computations with respect to data integrity. ZFS wants to guarantee that your data is not subject to bit rot or silent corruption. Other filesystems or solutions, dont do that. Why do you think they are much faster than ZFS? Because they dont do the expensive calculations with respect to data safety!


People must have some really bad luck because of all the things that have pulled down my computer I've never experienced file system corruption - 9/10 if something goes haywire it is because of my own doing rather than an act of the computer gods trying to smite me with a kernel panic and file system corruption.

In the 10 years I've owned Mac's (from an eMac to the current iMac and MacBook Pro) I haven't experienced a single case of file system corruption *touch wood*

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: ZFS
by Kebabbert on Wed 17th Nov 2010 10:15 in reply to "RE[4]: ZFS"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

The amount of memory is a big killer - give it 4GB of memory and it flies but I say 2GB minimum but even then it isn't all too pleasant. It is a great file system designed for a large system with a tonne of memory but for something that is low powered requiring something light weight it is probably not the ideal file system to use.

Yes, it is officially known that ZFS is for Enterprise servers. Not desktop. Sun thinks it is safe to assume that an Enterprise server for $10.000 USD has at least 2GB RAM and 64 bit cpu?

However, the slow speed is secondary. Is your data safe? With ordinary filesystems your data is not safe. Neither with hardware raid. See below



People must have some really bad luck because of all the things that have pulled down my computer I've never experienced file system corruption
...
In the 10 years I've owned Mac's (from an eMac to the current iMac and MacBook Pro) I haven't experienced a single case of file system corruption *touch wood*

Or maybe you have not noticed the signs of silent corruption? If silent corruption happens, what will the result be? That the computer halts with a blinking sign "SILENT CORRUPTION"?

No. Maybe you can not open your file. Or your computer crashes - and the crash is blamed on an "shitty OS".



The reason you did not earlier experience silent corruption or bit rot, is because your drive was small. 30% of a drives surface is devoted to error checking and correcting codes - there are errors all the time. Most of them are corrected on the fly. A tiny percent are not correctable nor detectable. See the spec for a new Enterprise disk, it will say "1 irreparable bit on 10^15 bits" - those errors are not correctable.

If you have a tiny drive, you will never reach 10^15 bits. If you have a large array with large disks, you will quickly reach 10^15 bits. During these last 10 years, you had 1GB drives - and you never reached 10^15 bits. Today you will.

If you value your data, I suggest you read this CERN study about bit rot. CERN did at study on their storage servers and discovered lot of bit rot - even the hardware did not know!
http://storagemojo.com/2007/09/19/cerns-data-corruption-research/

Or this link where a researcher shows that XFS, JFS, NTFS, ReiserFS etc might corrupt your data:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-r...

I have lot of links about bit rot. You want to read them? This is one of the most important articles on bit rot:
http://queue.acm.org/detail.cfm?id=1317400

Because no solution (except ZFS) provides data safety, I doubt BTRFS will provide data safety.

Researchers have examined ZFS with respect to data safety, and ZFS seems to be safe. You want to read the research paper?

Reply Parent Score: 3