On May 25, 2011 7:15 AM, "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public. [...]
True.
> [...] In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that *do* hold open
meetings.
I can: the IETF, for example. All busin
I actually didn't know that their meetings were totally open. I'm more
familiar with IEEE, T10, and similar bodies which are most definitely not open.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 6:12 PM, "Bob Friesenhahn"
wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
>
>> You are welcom
On 05/26/11 04:21 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
Actually, this doesn't always work. There have been attempts to stack the deck
and force votes at IETF. One memorable meeting was more of a flashmob than a
standards meeting :-)
Is there a video :)
The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code
On 05/26/11 12:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards that
do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
*do* hold open meetings.
ISO language standards committees may not hold public meetings, bu
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Richard Elling wrote:
The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their own way
encounter deafening silence
On May 25, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>> The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
>> one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
>> they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of the
Paul Kraus wrote:
> There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> wrote:
>
> > The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> > interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an
> interoperable
> > standard can achieve sub
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
wrote:
> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
> standard can achieve substantial success. Vendors who only want their own
> way encounter
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the committee
members. Committee membership is not open to anyone w
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme
wrote:
> Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef:
> > Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> > everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> > implementation
>
> Why? Given that ZFS is S
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do
standards that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any
standards bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
The IETF holds totally open meetings. I hope that you are
appreciat
Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenk...@sun.com schreef:
> Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> implementation
Why? Given that ZFS is Solaris ZFS just as well as Nexenta ZFS just as
well as illumos ZFS,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that
> do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
> *do* hold
> open meetings.
The standards committees I have observed (I
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies
> that *do* hold open meetings.
You probybly don't know POSIX.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berli
Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
implementation. However there is surely a bad aftertaste of such a
policy. Someone can't complain about Oracles position to opensource and
put the development of Z
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies
> that *do* hold open meetings.
>
I think he may mean open to public application. N
You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards that
do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that
*do* hold open meetings.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 4:09 PM, "Joerg Schilling"
wrote:
> "Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
>
>> I
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many of the
> former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>
> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has been
> agreed upon widely already, and implementatio
>However, do remember that you might not be able to import a pool from
>another system, simply because your system can't support the
>featureset. Ideally, it would be nice if you could just import the pool
>and use the features your current OS supports, but that's pretty darned
>dicey, and I'
This will absolutely remain possible -- as the party responsible for Nexenta's
kernel, I can assure that pool import/export compatibility is a key requirement
for Nexenta's product.
-- Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, "Frank Van Damme" wrote:
> Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef
On 5/25/2011 4:37 AM, Frank Van Damme wrote:
Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
With various fock of opensource project
E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
There are not guarantee to be compatible
I hope at least they'll try. Just in case I want to import/export zpool
Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
> With various fock of opensource project
> E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
> There are not guarantee to be compatible
I hope at least they'll try. Just in case I want to import/export zpools
between Nexenta and OpenIndiana?
--
N
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High wrote:
> >... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
>
> This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
> with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
> all of which
Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS..
It simply means that Oracle want to make money from ZFS (as is normal
for technology companies with their own technology). The reason this
might cause uncertainty for ZFS is that maintaining or helping make
the open source v
On May 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
> wrote:
>> I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
>> group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. I don't know if Oracle
>> was invited to join (though given the way O
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
wrote:
> I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
> group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. I don't know if Oracle
> was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all
Richard would probably know for
On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High wrote:
>... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
all of which are incompatible.
I believe the
Well
With various fock of opensource project
E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
There are not guarantee to be compatible
Sent from my iPad
Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D
On May 24, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote:
>> O
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for the details. Sounds to me like Nexenta is in the lead!
Kind regards,
Hans Rattink
2011/5/24 Richard Elling
> On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
> > wrote:
> >> There are many ZFS implementations,
On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire.
Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
That coul
On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
> wrote:
>> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire.
>> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
>
> ... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta'
Thanks all, this cleared up some grey details for me!
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
wrote:
> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire.
> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
-B
--
Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com
_
On May 24, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Hans Rattink wrote:
> Hi Erik and Kebabber,
>
> Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion
> would be then that Nexenta has it's own version of ZFS and has nothing to
> fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it's uncertain w
yes
IMHO, oracle and nexenta are target different customer
On 5/24/2011 3:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote:
IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS
appliance with added
WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics,
L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc
Last week i've seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD i
> IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS
> appliance with added
> WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics,
> L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc
Last week i've seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD in a Boston NexentaStor solution.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
__
IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS appliance with added
WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics, L2ARc and ZIL with SSD etc
On 5/24/2011 2:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote:
Hi Erik and Kebabber,
Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion
would
Hi Erik and Kebabber,
Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion
would be then that Nexenta has it's own version of ZFS and has nothing to fear
of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it's uncertain what NetApp might come
up with as the details aren't publishe
On 5/24/2011 8:28 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there.
Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that is
already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS. Oracle
might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta's
I have a more generall question about intellectual rights around ZFS, when
taking a look at the storage solution NexentaStor.
Perhaps not necessary to mention, but to be complete: NexentaStor has created a
Open Source SAN solution that runs on commodity hardware. Compellent for
example has a NA
The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there.
Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that is
already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS. Oracle
might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta's ZFS is open and can not be
closed.
--
Thi
43 matches
Mail list logo
