Linked by Thom Holwerda on Tue 17th Sep 2013 22:04 UTC, submitted by garyd
General Development

ZFS is the world's most advanced filesystem, in active development for over a decade. Recent development has continued in the open, and OpenZFS is the new formal name for this open community of developers, users, and companies improving, using, and building on ZFS. Founded by members of the Linux, FreeBSD, Mac OS X, and illumos communities, including Matt Ahrens, one of the two original authors of ZFS, the OpenZFS community brings together over a hundred software developers from these platforms.

ZFS plays a major role in Solaris, of course, but beyond that, has it found other major homes? In fact, now that we're at it, how is Solaris doing anyway?

Thread beginning with comment 572781
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[7]: Solaris is doing well
by Alfman on Sun 22nd Sep 2013 17:08 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Solaris is doing well"
Member since:


"Linux has never been tested on larger servers than 8-sockets, so I would be very surprised if Linux could scale well."

"But I dont like lies and FUD. To that I react and I want to dispel FUD."

"-IBM Mainframes have very weak cpus, they are not strong. No matter what IBM says."

So you admit that you've never seen the data? Neither have I. This is the problem; everything you or I say is mere speculation.

Surely it must have been tested by oracle on an apples to apples comparison, but we just aren't allowed to see the results they don't approve of. Off the top of my head VMWare does the same thing and it's annoying as hell that their marketing heads say one thing and third parties aren't even allowed to publish contradictory evidence.

I use&like Oracle's database products, they're top notch, but censoring benchmarks sure is fishy. You are clearly taking everything oracle says at face value, and provided that I were to take everything they said at face value, then you are right: linux scales poorly.

However I frankly wouldn't put it above them to employ the same marketing FUD and bias that you are accusing their competitors of doing. Understand that I'm just trying to explain why I'm skeptical, not trying to persuade you that you are wrong. Like you, I just don't have the data that would settle the question in factual terms.

"-Linux scales quite bad. No matter what Linus Torvalds say."

"-Linux code quality is non optimal. Which Torvalds and other kernel devs agrees on."

I actually agree with you, the code quality isn't great and IMHO the kernel abstractions are poor. Linus refuses to have stable API/ABIs and consequently individual pieces of code are rarely stable even if they don't have bugs in them. I have many gripes with linux and am not a blind fanboy, however none of this actually speaks against linux scalability on SMP.

In order to form my opinion on the matter, I'd want more impartial data, and ideally some evidence that the system is correctly configured.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[8]: Solaris is doing well
by Kebabbert on Sun 22nd Sep 2013 18:48 in reply to "RE[7]: Solaris is doing well"
Kebabbert Member since:

You are clearly taking everything oracle says at face value, and provided that I were to take everything they said at face value, then you are right: linux scales poorly.

I am not really accepting everything that Oracle says. But I "trust" Oracle more than IBM, because IBM has time and again been proven to do pure FUD, they started the FUD thing in first place. IBM = masters of FUD.

I trust benchmarks more, than subjective marketing slogans. I even mostly accept IBM benchmarks. I want to see hard numbers, benchmarks.

Oracle actually has nothing against Linux. Instead, Oracle promotes Linux and bets heavily on Linux too. So Oracle does not dispel the Linux FUD - I am doing that. Oracle does not care, as long as they sell and earn money. However, the margin are better in high end servers, costing millions of USD.

Regarding non scalability of Linux. Even if you dont agree with Linux scaling bad - do you agree that there has never existed > 8-socket Linux servers? A) No one sells such large Linux servers - do you agree on this?

B) If you agree on this, do you agree that Linux has not been tested nor optimized on > 8 socket servers?

C) If you agree on B), do you agree that it is highly probable that Linux scales bad, because no kernel developer has ever tweaked Linux into many socket territory?

Which of A), B) or C) do agree with, and which do you disagree with? If you agree on all three, then we both agree that it is "highly probable that Linux scales bad", right? Not "Linux scales bad", but "highly probable it scales bad", right?

I have not proof on this, but there are benchmarks on similar hardware where Linux stutters and behaves bad. And HP benhcmarks showed awful performance on 64 socket server. Sure, there might be some work loads that Linux actually handles ok, but in general it is highly probable it scales bad.

So, do we both agree on "highly probable that Linux scales bad"? Or do you prefer "probable that Linux scales bad"? Or none of this?

PS. I wonder, for these SGI UV1000 NUMA servers, are developers always using MPI and similar cluster libraries, when developing software for it? You must always use MPI when developing for SGI NUMA servers? (I am convinced the Solaris SMP alike servers are not using MPI. I am convinced they just copy the Solaris binaries to the SMP servers, without rewriting them.)

Reply Parent Score: 2