On Aug 13, 2010, at 7:06 PM, 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?
Markets dictate behaviour. Ora
On 8/15/10 12:39 AM +0100 Kevin Walker wrote:
and Oracle are very, very greedy...
Let's not get all soft about OpenSolaris now ... all public companies
are very, very greedy. They exist solely to make money. It's awesome
that they make things that are useful, but it's just a way to meet
the m
On Sat, 14 Aug 2010, Mark Bennett wrote:
It is now even more likely Solaris will revert to it's niche on SPARC over the
next few years.
The probability of a "retreat to SPARC" direction is virtually zero.
SPARC offers advantages in scalability, but its straight-line
performance pales compar
On 08/14/10 03:32 PM, Mark Bennett wrote:
That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would
stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is
a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip
it out of S11 and make it an add-on or so
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 the
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 t
>That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would
>stay because its used by the Fishworks appliance... however, COMSTAR is
>a competitive advantage for DIY storage solutions. Maybe they will rip
>it out of S11 and make it an add-on or something. That would suck.
>I guess the
On 8/14/10 1:12 PM, Frank Cusack wrote:
>
> Wow, what leads you guys to even imagine that S11 wouldn't contain
> comstar, etc.? *Of course* it will contain most of the bits that
> are current today in OpenSolaris.
That's a very good question actually. I would think that COMSTAR would
stay becau
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek
Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
I will much sooner pay for sol11 i
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 5:58 AM, Russ Price wrote:
> 4. FreeBSD. I could live with it if I had to, but I'm not fond of its
> packaging system; the last time I tried it I couldn't get the package tools
> to pull a quick binary update. Even IPS works better. I could go to the
> ports tree instead, b
On 8/14/10 7:58 AM -0500 Russ Price wrote:
My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by
any or all of: missing features, artificial limits on functionality, or a
restrictive license. I consider the latter most likely, much like the OTN
On 8/14/10 3:15 PM -0400 Dave Po
On 8/13/10 11:21 PM -0400 Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Frank Cusack
I haven't met anyone who uses Solaris because of OpenSolaris.
What rock do you live under?
Very few people would bother paying f
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 e
On 8/14/10 Aug 14, 2:57 PM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote:
>> Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
>> serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
>
> I will much sooner pay for sol11 instead of use btrfs. Stability & speed &
> maturity
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek
>
> Or Btrfs. It may not be ready for production now, but it could become a
> serious alternative to ZFS in one year's time or so. (I have been using
I will much sooner pay for
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Russ Price
>
> For me, Solaris had zero mindshare since its beginning, on account of
> being
> prohibitively expensive.
I hear that a lot, and I don't get it. $400/yr does move it out of peo
On 08/14/10 09:36 AM, Paul B. Henson wrote:
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote:
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
"Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did."
At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to fe
On Aug 14, 2010, at 8:26 AM, "Edward Ned Harvey" wrote:
>> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
>> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>>
>> #3 I previously believed that vmfs3 was able to handle sparse files
>> amazingly well, like, when you create
On Fri, 13 Aug 2010, Tim Cook wrote:
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/
"Oracle will spend *more* money on OpenSolaris development than Sun did."
At least, as a Sun customer, that's the line they were trying to feed me
during the buy out.
Why exactly would I want to
Constantine wrote:
ZFS doesn't do this.
I thought so too. ;)
Situation brief: I've got OpenSolaris 2009.06 installed on the RAID-5 array on
the controller with 512 Mb cache (as i can remember) without a cache-saving
battery.
I hope the controller disabled the cache then.
Probably a goo
And, if it matters, this OpenSolaris installed as Dom0 of xvm.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>ZFS doesn't do this.
I thought so too. ;)
Situation brief: I've got OpenSolaris 2009.06 installed on the RAID-5 array on
the controller with 512 Mb cache (as i can remember) without a cache-saving
battery. At the Friday lightning bolt hit the power supply station of
colocating company,and turn
Really sad.
Will all the opensolaris-related mailing lists be dead?
Thanks.
Fred
> -Original Message-
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Andrej Podzimek
> Sent: 星期六, 八月 14, 2010 23:36
> To: Russ Price
> Cc: zfs-discuss
3. Just stick with b134. Actually, I've managed to compile my way up to b142,
but I'm having trouble getting beyond it - my attempts to install later
versions just result in new boot environments with the old kernel, even with
the latest pkg-gate code in place. Still, even if I get the latest c
Constantine wrote:
Hi.
I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was
automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure.
ZFS doesn't do this.
Can you give some more details of what you're seeing?
Would also be useful to see output of:
>Look in the (hidden) .zfs directory (mind the dot)
That was the first thing which i did, there is nothing new (except snapshots,
but i am on one of them already).
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@ope
On 14-8-2010 15:56, Constantine wrote:
Hi.
I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was
automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure.
There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a
questions -- Can I b
Hi.
I've got the ZFS filesystem (opensolaris 2009.06), witch, as i can see, was
automatically rollbacked by OS to the lastest snapshot after the power failure.
There is a trouble - snapshot is too old, and ,consequently, there is a
questions -- Can I browse pre-rollbacked corrupted branch of F
On 14-8-2010 14:58, Russ Price wrote:
6. Abandon ZFS completely and go back to LVM/MD-RAID. I ran it for
years before switching to ZFS, and it works - but it's a bitter pill
to swallow after drinking the ZFS Kool-Aid.
Nice summary. ;-)
I switched to FreeBSD for the moment and it works very wel
On 08/13/2010 10:21 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
Very few people would bother paying for solaris/zfs if they couldn't try it
for free and get a good taste of what it's valuable for.
My guess is that the theoretical Solaris Express 11 will be crippled by any or
all of: missing features, artif
> From: cyril.pli...@gmail.com [mailto:cyril.pli...@gmail.com] On Behalf
> Of Cyril Plisko
>
> The compressratio shows you how much *real* data was compressed.
> The file in question, however, can be sparse file and have its size
> vastly
> different from what du says, even without compression.
> From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Edward Ned Harvey
>
> #3 I previously believed that vmfs3 was able to handle sparse files
> amazingly well, like, when you create a new vmdk, it appears almost
> instantly regardless of size,
"Mike M" wrote:
> Think: strategic business advantage.
>
> Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one.
Too bad that they decided to throw it into acid.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
On Sat, Aug 14, 2010 at 6:32 AM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> I'm confused. I have compression enabled on a ZFS filesystem, which
> contains for all intents and purposes, just a single 20G file, and I see ...
>
> # ls -lh somefile
>
> -rw--- 1 root root 20G Aug 13 17:41 somefile
>
34 matches
Mail list logo
