On 1/19/08, Paul Kraus <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I suspect that the amount of changes / discussion is no less > for ZFS than for any new filesystem, just that due to the open source > nature of it the discussions are in public view. The fact that the > issues *are* being discussed is a huge advantage in my mind. At least > we *know* that the issue are being recognized. I don't know how many > times I have filed bug reports on various aspects of an OS and never > get a good response that the issue has been recognized as such.
I've always argued about Sun and their sheer amount of patches for any software they seem to release. It's a good/bad situation. On the bright side they are pro active in creating and releasing patches, even their IDR process is a good idea and very pro active of them. On the contrary you could look at it as if their software always ends up needing more and more patches no matter how many patches you end up applying, you're almost always out of date and vulnerable to potentially critical known/unknown issues. AIX doesn't seem to have lots of patches out there (nowhere as many as Solaris). One could argue that the software it self does not need to be patched after it's released. Then again you could argue vendor's not too proactive in chasing up patches and the userbase doesn't find many bugs to begin with... I guess both have to do with company's support strategy (in one way or another). > VxFS did not have the performance we needed without lots of > tuning, while ZFS did fine right out of the box. We had moved away > from VxVM/VxFS years ago due to SLVM maturing and giving us the > features we really needed, SLVM was easier to manage, and OS upgrades > are *much* simpler with SLVM than with VxVM/VxFS. There was no real > justification for the cost and more difficult management of VxVM/VxFS. > > For some background, I have been using both VxVM/VxFS and > DiskSuite / SLVM since about 1996. VxSF is not a typo it seems to be. I was referring to Veritas Storage Foundation, not only VxFS. ZFS isn't only a filesystem hence should not be compared to only VxFS. We avoid using VxSF for OS volumes, use SVM for those instead because as you say it's easier and cleaner to maintain. VxSF overcomplicates simple environments, however it makes complex environments easier to manage. I'd not want to manage 100s of multipathed LUNs via SVM on a clustered system when VxSF is an option. > I expect that UFS was not changing much because it had spent > so many years changing already ;-) Seriously, I was seeing serious > changes in SLVM/UFS up until about a year or two ago. I even ran into > one of the issues created by fixing another issue with SLVM about a > year ago. We are using ZFS in a couple 'production' roles, only one of > which is critical, and we picked ZFS because no other FS we tested > scaled the way we needed it to. Again ZFS and VxSF all fit differing purposes. I see ZFS trying to compete with VxSF, but not the other way around (at least not in techincal aspects). -- _________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /¯¯¯¯ _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
