(Apologies for top-posting, but it's just easier on iOS). Certification by definition is limited: we can only certify on platforms provided by vendors with whom we have an active ISV partnership.
Using Microsoft as an example: we certified Windows on Oracle VM and they certified Oracle Linux on Hyper-V and Azure. And IBM retain their Power platform, a direct competitor to SPARC. Finally, I suspect your trust of ZFS comes from your experience. If you gave btrfs the same time (without the expectation of feature-to-feature parity), you may find yourself trusting it too. Sent from my iPhone > On 31 Oct 2014, at 6:44 pm, Andrew McGlashan > <[email protected]> wrote: > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > Hash: SHA256 > > Hi, > > On 31/10/2014 6:24 PM, Avi Miller wrote: >>> On 31 Oct 2014, at 6:19 pm, Andrew McGlashan >>> <[email protected]> wrote: >>> Sorry, I did mean under a virtualization environment ... that makes a >>> big difference. >> >> We support most virtualization platforms including VMware, Hyper-V and >> Oracle VM. We also support most operating systems. Certification has also >> broaden to include RDBMS on Windows running on Hyper-V (with Oracle Linux >> certification on Hyper-V in progress). We even extended support on VMware to >> cover RAC from 11.2.0.3 and higher. Though, VMware support doesn't include >> certification. > > So, the "certified" platforms have been widened, but are still limited? > >>> I would have preferred that Oracle give Sun a >>> good leg up, particularly since there are so many implementations out >>> there that are Sun OS / Oracle based and over so many years -- instead, >>> Sun become vulnerable and Oracle gobbled them up, rather than otherwise >>> help them out. >> >> We didn't gobble them up: Sun had to be sold, regardless. Oracle was the >> primary application on the SPARC platform so we were giving them as much >> support as we possibly could. Would you have preferred IBM to buy Sun? They >> were the front-runner for the acquisition for much longer than Oracle. > > IBM don't have any hardware platform now, everything has been sold off. > > So sad that Sun couldn't remain viable as Sun going forward. > >>> I would also like to see ZFS have it's license terms changed so that it >>> can be a real alternative to BTRFS for Linux, instead we need to go BSD >>> to get the best benefits of ZFS. >> >> ZFS is almost certainly never going to have its license changed: I'd rather >> focus on improving btrfs so that it negates the need for ZFS on Linux >> completely. Keep in mind that we started development on btrfs way before the >> Sun acquisition. > > Well, I know the history of btrfs as well as ocfs -- I just wish I > shared your view and that of Russell's that btrfs is the way to go > moving forward, unfortunately I can't share your enthusiasm for it. I > trust ZFS a great deal more than BTRFS. > > Cheers > A. > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32) > > iF4EAREIAAYFAlRTPfoACgkQqBZry7fv4vskqQEAth6Pr9lQX6W9b9V4POo4iNC1 > iNU/SuTjyzyPAfL+4jkA/AtXCvCM1MCkodlJfZSuxIrh0aTQ68Oydnmb1+BGMWkZ > =q7AW > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > _______________________________________________ > luv-main mailing list > [email protected] > http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
