Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled on about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into cloud computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart from him... :-| From that day on I felt enlightened about Oracle and how they want do business; they are run by a CEO who is narrow minded and clearly doesn't understand Open Source or cloud computing and Oracle are very, very greedy... I only hope that OpenSolaris can live on the Illumos project and assist great projects such as Nexentastor. http://www.illumos.org/ K On 15 August 2010 00:02, Mark Bennett wrote: > On 8/13/10 8:56 PM -0600 Eric D. Mudama wrote: > > On Fri, Aug 13 at 19:06, Frank Cusack wrote: > >> Interesting POV, and I agree. Most of the many "distributions" of > >> OpenSolaris had very little value-add. Nexenta was the most interesting > >> and why should Oracle enable them to build a business at their expense? > > > > These distributions are, in theory, the "gateway drug" where people > > can experiment inexpensively to try out new technologies (ZFS, dtrace, > > crossbow, comstar, etc.) and eventually step up to Oracle's "big iron" > > as their business grows. > > >I've never understood how OpenSolaris was supposed to get you to Solaris. > >OpenSolaris is for enthusiasts and great great folks like Nexenta. > >Solaris lags so far behind it's not really an upgrade path. > > Fedora is a great beta test arena for what eventually becomes a commercial > Enterprise offering. OpenSolaris was the Solaris equivalent. > > Losing the free bleeding edge testing community will no doubt impact on the > Solaris code quality. > > It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over > the next few years. > > Mark. > -- > This message posted from opensolaris.org > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
To be fair, he did talk some sense about how everyone was claiming to have a product that was cloud computing, but I still don't like Oracle. With there current Java Patent war with Google and now this with OpenSolaris, it leaves a very bad taste in my mouth. Will this affect ZFS being used in FreeBSD? On 15 August 2010 15:13, David Magda wrote: > On Aug 14, 2010, at 19:39, Kevin Walker wrote: > > I once watched a video interview with Larry from Oracle, this ass rambled >> on >> about how he hates cloud computing and that everyone was getting into >> cloud >> computing and in his opinion no one understood cloud computing, apart from >> him... :-| >> > > If this is the video you're talking about, I think you misinterpreted what > he meant: > > Cloud computing is not only the future of computing, but it is the >> present, and the entire past of computing is all cloud. [...] All it is is a >> computer connected to a network. What do you think Google runs on? Do you >> think they run on water vapour? It's databases, and operating systems, and >> memory, and microprocessors, and the Internet. And all of a sudden it's none >> of that, it's "the cloud". [...] All "the cloud" is, is computers on a >> network, in terms of technology. In terms of business model, you can say >> it's rental. All SalesForce.com was, before they were cloud computing, was >> software-as-a-service, and then they became cloud computing. [...] Our >> industry is so bizarre: they change a term and think they invented >> technology. >> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rmrxN3GWHpM#t=45m > > I don't see any inaccurate in what said. > > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS + fsck
Hi all, Just subscribed to the list after a debate on our helpdesk lead me to the posting about ZFS corruption and the need for a fsck repair tool of some kind... Has there been any update on this? Kind regards, Kevin Walker Coreix Limited DDI: (+44) 0207 183 1725 ext 90 Mobile: (+44) 07960 967818 Fax: (+44) 0208 53 44 111 * This message is intended solely for the use of the individual or organisation to whom it is addressed. It may contain privileged or confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, you should not use, copy, alter, or disclose the contents of this message * ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Swapping disks in pool to facilitate pool growth
Hi Guys, We are a running a Solaris 10 production server being used for backup services within our DC. We have 8 500GB drives in a zpool and we wish to swap them out 1 by 1 for 1TB drives. I would like to know if it is viable to add larger disks to zfs pool to grow the pool size and then remove the smaller disks? I would assume this would degrade the pool and require it to resilver? Any advice would be gratefully received. Kind regards Kevin ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SAS/short stroking vs. SSDs for ZIL
You do seem to misunderstand ZIL. ZIL is quite simply write cache and using a short stroked rotating drive is never going to provide a performance increase that is worth talking about and more importantly ZIL was designed to be used with a RAM/Solid State Disk. We use sata2 *HyperDrive5* RAM disks in mirrors and they work well and are far cheaper than STEC or other enterprise SSD's and have non of the issue related to trim... Highly recommended... ;-) http://www.hyperossystems.co.uk/ Kevin On 29 December 2010 13:40, Edward Ned Harvey < opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com> wrote: > > From: Bob Friesenhahn [mailto:bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us] > > Sent: Tuesday, December 28, 2010 9:23 PM > > > > > The question of IOPS here is relevant to conversation because of ZIL > > > dedicated log. If you have advanced short-stroking to get the write > latency > > > of a log device down to zero, then it can compete against SSD for > purposes > > > of a log device, but nobody seems to believe such technology currently > > > exists, and it certainly couldn't compete against SSD for random reads. > > > (ZIL log is the only situation I know of, where write performance of a > drive > > > matters and read performance does not matter.) > > > > It seems that you may be confused. For the ZIL the drive's rotational > > latency (based on RPM) is the dominating factor and not the lateral > > head seek time on the media. In this case, the "short-stroking" you > > are talking about does not help any. The ZIL is already effectively > > "short-stroking" since it writes in order. > > Nope. I'm not confused at all. I'm making a distinction between "short > stroking" and "advanced short stroking." Where simple "short stroking" > does > as you said - eliminates the head seek time but still susceptible to > rotational latency. As you said, the ZIL already effectively accomplishes > that end result, provided a dedicated spindle disk for log device, but does > not do that if your ZIL is on the pool storage. And what I'm calling > "advanced short stroking" are techniques that effectively eliminate, or > minimize both seek & latency, to zero or near-zero. What I'm calling > "advanced short stroking" doesn't exist as far as I know, but is > theoretically possible through either special disk hardware or special > drivers. > > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
