On Sat, Dec 25, 2010 at 11:23 PM, Richard Elling <richard.ell...@gmail.com>wrote:
> On Dec 21, 2010, at 5:05 AM, Deano wrote: > > > The question therefore is, is there room in the software implementation to > achieve performance and reliability numbers similar to expensive drives > whilst using relative cheap drives? > > > For some definition of "similar," yes. But using relatively cheap drives > does > not mean the overall system cost will be cheap. For example, $250 will buy > 8.6K random IOPS @ 4KB in an SSD[1], but to do that with "cheap disks" > might > require eighty 7,200 rpm SATA disks. > > ZFS is good but IMHO easy to see how it can be improved to better meet this > situation, I can’t currently say when this line of thinking and code will > move from research to production level use (tho I have a pretty good idea ;) > ) but I wouldn’t bet on the status quo lasting much longer. In some ways the > removal of OpenSolaris may actually be a good thing, as its catalyized a > number of developers from the view that zfs is Oracle led, to thinking “what > can we do with zfs code as a base”? > > > There are more people outside of Oracle developing for ZFS than inside > Oracle. > This has been true for some time now. > > > Pardon my skepticism, but where is the proof of this claim (I'm quite certain you know I mean no disrespect)? Solaris11 Express was a massive leap in functionality and bugfixes to ZFS. I've seen exactly nothing out of "outside of Oracle" in the time since it went closed. We used to see updates bi-weekly out of Sun. Nexenta spending hundreds of man-hours on a GUI and userland apps isn't work on ZFS. --Tim
_______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
