Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote: On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote: The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS, they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it again, there is still a problem with syncing the ZFS ve3rsions from the OSS OpenSolaris continuation projects. For a while Apple was considering it, and if Ellison and Jobs can come to an agreement, it would certainly become very popular very quickly. I am sure that there is still a chance to see ZFS in Mac OS X and Linux. To make it really open, I would like to see vendor tagged feature descriptors as mentioned before. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
I think on this, the big question is going to be whether Oracle continues to release ZFS updates under CDDL after their commercial releases. Overall, in the past it has obviously and necessarily been the case that FreeBSD has been a '2nd class citizen'. Moving forward, that 2nd class idea becomes very mutable - and ironically it becomes more so in regards to dealing with organizations that have longevity. Moving forward... If Oracle continues to release critical ZFS feature sets under CDDL to the community, then: A) They are no longer pre-releasing those features to OpenSolaris B) FreeBSD gets them at the same time. If Oracle does not continue to release ZFS features sets under CDDL, then then game changes. Pick your choice of operating systems - one that has a history of surviving for nearly two decades on its own with community support, or the 'green leaf off the dead tree' that just decided to jump into the willy-nilly world without direct/giant corporate support. 2nd class citizen issue for FreeBSD disappears either way. The only remaining question would be the remaining crufts of legal disposition. I could for instance see NetApp or somebody try and sue ixSystems, but I have a really, really rough time seeing Oracle/LarryEllison suing the FreeBSD foundation overall or something? Oh yeah - plus BTRFS on the horizon? Honestly - I am not here to start a flame war - I am asking these questions because businesses both big and small need to know what to do. My hunch is, we all have to wait and see if Oracle releases ZFS updates after Solaris 11, and if so, whether that is a subset of functionality or full functionality. - mike On Mar 19, 2011, at 11:54 PM, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. How is the performance of ZFS under FreeBSD? Is it comparable to that in Solaris, or still slower due to some needed compatibility layer? -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mar 24, 2011, at 02:03, Michael DeMan wrote: The only remaining question would be the remaining crufts of legal disposition. I could for instance see NetApp or somebody try and sue ixSystems, but I have a really, really rough time seeing Oracle/LarryEllison suing the FreeBSD foundation overall or something? Last time I checked NetApp actually used FreeBSD under the hood. As do Isilon and Juniper AFAIK. That's not to say they couldn't, but from a PR perspective it's going to stir things up. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Michael DeMan sola...@deman.com wrote: Moving forward... If Oracle continues to release critical ZFS feature sets under CDDL to the community, then: A) They are no longer pre-releasing those features to OpenSolaris B) FreeBSD gets them at the same time. If Oracle does not continue to release ZFS features sets under CDDL, then then game changes. Pick your choice of operating systems - one that has a history of surviving for nearly two decades on its own with community support, or the 'green leaf off the dead tree' that just decided to jump into the willy-nilly world without direct/giant corporate support. 2nd class citizen issue for FreeBSD disappears either way. If Oracle does not continue to publish up to date ZFS sources under CDDL, then it may even be that Orcale becomes a second class citizen in the future as it may be that there is more ZFS development in the community than it is inside Oracle. Oh yeah - plus BTRFS on the horizon? BTRFS is to be discussed in 6 years, after BTRFS might have become mature. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 3/21/2011 5:44 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: We do have support for running your own code using our API. Its just that we can't reasonably be expected to support people who want do things like... oh, zpool import -f (note the -f). Or editing local configuration files that are also managed by the management software. You wouldn't have to worry about the latter in my case, as I'd turn off the management software and manage the configuration files automatically along with the rest of my infrastructure ;). The main additional components we would need to run would be apache with mod_authz_fsacl, and a separate instance of apache with mod_perl that provides the API our identity management infrastructure hooks into to manage zfs file systems. We also replace syslog with syslog-ng, run openntpd instead of xntpd, and run a variety of management tools such as tenshi, aide, munin... Another project that's coming up is going to require the creation of a captive service account for a CMS to sftp files into user and group web directories. I dunno that your support guys would be happy with the relatively extensive changes we would make to the default state of your appliance :). And I wouldn't particularly want to worry about having to get approval to make changes when things come up that don't fit into the out-of-the-box experience. So unfortunately NexentaStor most likely won't fit our requirements; I kind of prefer a general-purpose operating system over an appliance anyway. NCP 4 will have the same fixes that OpenSolaris has. I'd be interested to know which bugs are most annoying for this person -- we have a variety of them fixed in NS 3.1, but have not yet resync'ed NCP 3 (something we will do when 3.1 ships). He mentioned in passingan NFSv4 OpenOwner lock problem that I'm unfamiliar with, and a TCP/IP related kernel panic. He's on the list, so I guess he could pipe in with more details if he chooses. One thing that's really biting me right now is the interaction between NFS exclusive open, ACL's, and mode bits. Due to a limitation in the protocol, the initial open has a mode of 0, and then the intended creation mode is separately set later with a setattr. So the object inherits the correct ACL on the open, and then the equivalent of a chmod is performed destroying it :(. Oracle most likely isn't going to fix it, it's been a known issue since January 2005 (CR6215088, initially with UFS ACLs, also breaks ZFS ACLs), and the ticket I opened about it was closed. Unfortunately they didn't take the opportunity to fix it in NFSv4, although it looks like it was addressed in NFSv4.1. It seems like it should be possible to work around it in NFSv4, if we end up going with an open source distribution hopefully we can fix it ourselves. Or it would be solved as a side effect of aclmode=ignore. On a general basis, its hard to allocate engineers for ad-hoc projects like this mostly because I already have more work than I have engineers to perform the work. Oh, did I mention, we're hiring? :-) I wish you the best of luck in hiring sufficient engineers to be able to offer support for NCP or OpenIndiana :)... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 01:54:54PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. How is the performance of ZFS under FreeBSD? Is it comparable to that in Solaris, or still slower due to some needed compatibility layer? This compatibility layer is just a bunch of ugly defines, etc. to allow for less code modifications. It introduces no overhead. I made performance comparison between FreeBSD 9 with ZFSv28 and Solaris 11 Express, but I don't think Solaris license allows me to publish the results. But believe me, the results were very surprising:) -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com pgpHCdMIWMoFb.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 03/23/11 09:07 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 01:54:54PM +0700, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidekp...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. How is the performance of ZFS under FreeBSD? Is it comparable to that in Solaris, or still slower due to some needed compatibility layer? This compatibility layer is just a bunch of ugly defines, etc. to allow for less code modifications. It introduces no overhead. I made performance comparison between FreeBSD 9 with ZFSv28 and Solaris 11 Express, but I don't think Solaris license allows me to publish the results. But believe me, the results were very surprising:) You can compare OpenIndiana oi_148 (and oi148a with IllumOS) and publish comparisons. I think site: Phoronix.com already did comparisons with ZFS under several platforms and other (Linux) file systems without sweat. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Nikola M. minik...@gmail.com wrote: I think site: Phoronix.com already did comparisons with ZFS under several platforms and other (Linux) file systems without sweat. with single disk configuration no less (er, more) ;) You may want to check this instead: http://www.zfsbuild.com/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
OpenIndiana and others (i.e. Benunix) are distributions that actively support full desktop workstations based on the Illumos base. It is true, that the storage server application is a popular one and so has supporters both commercially and others. ZFS is amazing and quite rightly it stands out, it works even better when used with zones, crossbow, dtrace, etc. and so its obvious to see what it's a focus and often seems the only priority. However is isn't the only interest, by a long shot. The SFE package repositories has many packages available to install for when the binary packaging aren't up to date. OpenIndiana is hard at work trying to build bigger binary repositories with more apps and newer versions. A simple pkg install APPLICATION is the aim for the majority of main applications. Is it not moving fast enough, or missing the packages you need? Well that's the beauty of Open Source, we welcome and have systems to help newcomers add and update the packages and applications they want, so we all benefit. Ultimately I'd (and I'm sure many would) like to have a level of binary repositories similar to Debian, with stable and faster changing place repos and support for many different applications, however that requires a lot of work and manpower. Bye, Deano -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fajar A. Nugraha Sent: 23 March 2011 01:09 To: Jeff Bacon Cc: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10 On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Jeff Bacon ba...@walleyesoftware.com wrote: I've also started conversations with Pogo about offering an OpenIndiana based workstation, which might be another option if you prefer more of Sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone uses the non-Oracle versions for anything but file storage... ? Seeing that userland programs for *Solaris and derivatives (GUI, daemons, tools, etc) is usually late compared to bleeding-edge Linux distros (e.g. Ubuntu), with no particular dedicated team working on improvement there, I'm guessing the answer will be highly unlikely. -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 3/23/2011 6:14 AM, Deano wrote: OpenIndiana and others (i.e. Benunix) are distributions that actively support full desktop workstations based on the Illumos base. It is true, that the storage server application is a popular one and so has supporters both commercially and others. ZFS is amazing and quite rightly it stands out, it works even better when used with zones, crossbow, dtrace, etc. and so its obvious to see what it's a focus and often seems the only priority. However is isn't the only interest, by a long shot. The SFE package repositories has many packages available to install for when the binary packaging aren't up to date. OpenIndiana is hard at work trying to build bigger binary repositories with more apps and newer versions. A simple pkg install APPLICATION is the aim for the majority of main applications. Is it not moving fast enough, or missing the packages you need? Well that's the beauty of Open Source, we welcome and have systems to help newcomers add and update the packages and applications they want, so we all benefit. Ultimately I'd (and I'm sure many would) like to have a level of binary repositories similar to Debian, with stable and faster changing place repos and support for many different applications, however that requires a lot of work and manpower. Bye, Deano Honestly (and I say this from purely personal preferences and bias, not any official statement), I see the long-term future of Solaris (and IllumOS-based distros) as the new engine for appliances, supplanting Linux and the *BSDs in that space. For a lot of reasons, Solaris has a long list of very superior functionality that make is very appealing for appliance makers. Right now, we see that in two areas: ZFS for storage, and high scaleability for DBs (the various Oracle ExaData stuff). I'm expecting to see a whole raft of things start to show up - JVM container systems (Run Your App Server in SUPERMAN MODE! ), online backup devices, firewall appliances, spam and mail filter systems, intrusion detection systems, maybe even software routers, etc... It's here that I think Solaris' strengths can beat its competitors, and where its weaknesses aren't significant. Sadly, I think Solaris' future as a general-purpose OS is likely finished. Of course, that's just my reading of the tea leaves... -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 9:27 AM, Erik Trimble erik.trim...@oracle.com wrote:
For a lot of reasons, Solaris has a long list of very superior functionality
that make is very appealing for appliance makers. Right now, we see that in
two areas: ZFS for storage, and high scaleability for DBs (the various
Oracle ExaData stuff). I'm expecting to see a whole raft of things start
to show up - JVM container systems (Run Your App Server in SUPERMAN MODE! ),
online backup devices, firewall appliances, spam and mail filter systems,
intrusion detection systems, maybe even software routers, etc...
It's here that I think Solaris' strengths can beat its competitors, and
where its weaknesses aren't significant.
Sadly, I think Solaris' future as a general-purpose OS is likely finished.
It has been a long time since I thought that Solaris made a good
Workstation, SunRays not withstanding. The JDS spin of Gnome was an
attempt to get back into the Workstation space, but IMHO was not
really a player. Solaris' strengths have been on the server side and
some of the very serious innovation in Solaris 10 really solidified
that position (ZFS, dtrace, SMF, FMD, etc.). With this as the starting
point, it is easy to see how packaging Solaris into an appliance is
appealing.
While I am mostly a Solaris admin, my desktop runs Linux and has
for over 5 years. The strength of the desktop tools consistently
available on Linux as part of the distribution was what converted me
over. Back in 1996 I had a dual CPU SPARC20 running
OpenLook/OpenWindows as my desktop and it was fantastic, but times
change.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
- Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
- Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
- Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
I've also started conversations with Pogo about offering an OpenIndiana based workstation, which might be another option if you prefer more of a general purpose solution. - Garrett Just to highlight a point that seems often lost here - not everyone uses Solaris/ZFS as a file storage appliance/home NAS and workstation/workstation. Sometimes, people want to run applications on the machine too. :) ZFS became such a focus and driver for Solaris that sometimes it feels like the tail is wagging the dog. (Of course I'm writing this to the ZFS list, so...) I use ZFS for fileservers, sure. The primary application though is an in-house database using ZFS to tie together 120TB worth of JBODs and 2TB Constellations via LSI HBAs to present filesystems to a bunch of processes on the box doing intensive data analysis. ZFS is great, ZFS is good, indeed, ZFS is one of the drivers for why this is using Solaris and not CentOS... but it matters that Solaris be a decent all-round OS, not a tuned fileserver appliance. Sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone uses the non-Oracle versions for anything but file storage... ? -bacon ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Wed, Mar 23, 2011 at 7:33 AM, Jeff Bacon ba...@walleyesoftware.com wrote: I've also started conversations with Pogo about offering an OpenIndiana based workstation, which might be another option if you prefer more of Sometimes I'm left wondering if anyone uses the non-Oracle versions for anything but file storage... ? Seeing that userland programs for *Solaris and derivatives (GUI, daemons, tools, etc) is usually late compared to bleeding-edge Linux distros (e.g. Ubuntu), with no particular dedicated team working on improvement there, I'm guessing the answer will be highly unlikely. -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mar 22, 2011, at 21:09, Fajar A. Nugraha wrote: Seeing that userland programs for *Solaris and derivatives (GUI, daemons, tools, etc) is usually late compared to bleeding-edge Linux distros (e.g. Ubuntu), with no particular dedicated team working on improvement there, I'm guessing the answer will be highly unlikely. Pkgsrc works pretty well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pkgsrc As does Blastwave and Sunfreeware. I like a stable base to work off, and that's why I'm also a fan of the BSDs: a well-done OS, with fairly easy to add third-party software. Having pre-packaged binaries is useful, but I find that either the churn is too fast (Fedora, Ubuntu), or it's stable and therefore no different that having Solaris/BSD (RHEL-based stuff). There's also the fact that the pre-packaged stuff often pulls in dependencies I have no use for (e.g., Avahi, D-Bus). Pluses and minuses to both. I can deal with installing more up-to-date packages if need be. There is no substitute for ZFS, zones/jails, DTrace, etc. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 3/18/2011 3:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words (no X11.) It might well suit you. Indeed :), my servers are headless (well, as headless as you can get on x86 hardware 8-/, they do have an ipmi remote console that still needs to be used occasionally sigh) and I generally install a minimal set of packages. We have the X client libraries installed on some of our linux servers, as our DBA's like to run the gui oracle installer, but I don't recall ever needing to run X software on our storage servers. One of my many spats with Oracle technical support (the database side, not the operating system side) was trying to get them to justify why the xscreensaver package was listed as a core dependency of running 10g under RHEL 5 :(. Never did get an answer to that, they just closed the ticket out from under me... c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it. By the time I do some initial evaluation, then some prototyping, I don't anticipate migrating anything production wise until at the earliest Christmas break, so that timing shouldn't be a problem. Any thoughts on how soon a beta might be available? As it sounds like there will be significant changes, it might be better to evaluate with a beta of the new stuff rather than the production version of the older stuff. Plus I generally tend to break things in unexpected ways ;), so doing that in the beta cycle might be beneficial. d) NCP 4 will make much more use of the illumos userland, and only use Debian when illumos doesn't have an equivalent. Given both NCP and OpenIndiana will be based off of illumos, and as of version 4 NCP will be migrating as much as possible of the userland to solaris as opposed to gnu, other than the differing packaging formats what do you feel will distinguish NCP from openindiana? NCP is positioned as a bare-bones server, whereas openindiana is trying to be more general purpose including desktop use? e) NCP comes entirely unsupported. NexentaStor is a commercial product with real support behind it, though. Can you treat NexentaStor like a general purpose operating system, not use the management gui, and configure everything from a shell prompt, or is it more appliance like and you're locked out from the OS? In other words, would it be possible (although not necessarily cost-effective) to pay for NexentaStor for the support but treat it like NCP? Has your company considered basic support contracts for NCP? I've heard from at least one other site that might be interested in something like that. We don't need much in the way of handholding, the majority of our support calls end up being actual bugs or limitations in solaris. But if one of our file servers panics, doesn't import a pool when it boots, and crashes every time you try to import it by hand, it would be nice to have an engineer available :). Thanks... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mon, 2011-03-21 at 14:56 -0700, Paul B. Henson wrote: On 3/18/2011 3:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it. By the time I do some initial evaluation, then some prototyping, I don't anticipate migrating anything production wise until at the earliest Christmas break, so that timing shouldn't be a problem. Any thoughts on how soon a beta might be available? As it sounds like there will be significant changes, it might be better to evaluate with a beta of the new stuff rather than the production version of the older stuff. Plus I generally tend to break things in unexpected ways ;), so doing that in the beta cycle might be beneficial. I *hate* talking about unreleased product schedules, but I think you can expect a beta with a month or two, perhaps less. We've already got an alpha that we've handed out in limited quantities. d) NCP 4 will make much more use of the illumos userland, and only use Debian when illumos doesn't have an equivalent. Given both NCP and OpenIndiana will be based off of illumos, and as of version 4 NCP will be migrating as much as possible of the userland to solaris as opposed to gnu, other than the differing packaging formats what do you feel will distinguish NCP from openindiana? NCP is positioned as a bare-bones server, whereas openindiana is trying to be more general purpose including desktop use? NCP is a core-technology thing. Definitely not a general purpose OS at all, and will be missing all the desktop stuff. The idea behind NCP is that other distros build on top of, or people who just want that bare bones OS use it. It comes with debian packaging, and we do have a bunch of the common server packages (Apache, etc.) set up, but not everything that you might want. e) NCP comes entirely unsupported. NexentaStor is a commercial product with real support behind it, though. Can you treat NexentaStor like a general purpose operating system, not use the management gui, and configure everything from a shell prompt, or is it more appliance like and you're locked out from the OS? In other words, would it be possible (although not necessarily cost-effective) to pay for NexentaStor for the support but treat it like NCP? Once you dive under the controlled UI (which you can do), you basically are breaking your support contract. Going forward, NCP and NS will be more closely synchronized, so you'll be able to get the same OS, and probably receive patches to it, that you get with NS, albeit without official support and without the proprietary add-on features like HA clustering, the management UI, auto-tiering/auto-sync, etc. Has your company considered basic support contracts for NCP? I've heard from at least one other site that might be interested in something like that. We don't need much in the way of handholding, the majority of our support calls end up being actual bugs or limitations in solaris. But if one of our file servers panics, doesn't import a pool when it boots, and crashes every time you try to import it by hand, it would be nice to have an engineer available :). There have been some discussions, but figuring out how to make that commercially worthwhile is challenging. At some level, our engineers are busy enough that we'd have to see enough commercial demand here to justify adding engineers, because the number of calls we would take would probably go significantly with such a change. - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 3/18/2011 6:32 PM, David Magda wrote: Oracle has said that they will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source- licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris operating system. http://unixconsole.blogspot.com/2010/08/internal-oracle-memo-leaked-on-solaris.html Hmm, I dunno that I'd take a quote from a leaked internal memo as gospel ;). For that matter, even if they flat out publicly announced it I can't say I'd trust them to actually follow through... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 3/21/2011 2:59 PM, Garrett D'Amore wrote: I *hate* talking about unreleased product schedules :). but I think you can expect a beta with a month or two, perhaps less. We've already got an alpha that we've handed out in limited quantities. Actually, I read about that alpha; one of my coworkers was at SCALE 9x, if I'd known at the time I would have had him pick up a CD ;). Once you dive under the controlled UI (which you can do), you basically are breaking your support contract. Meh :(, that rules it out for me; I need to run our own custom stuff to integrate it into our identity management platform. add-on features like HA clustering, the management UI, auto-tiering/auto-sync, etc. HA clustering I would actually be interested in, depending on pricing; but unfortunately not in an appliance-only availability. There have been some discussions, but figuring out how to make that commercially worthwhile is challenging Agreed. If not support contracts, what about engineering services available on a time/materials basis? That would cover my main concern of having expertise available in case of a critical failure. There might also be occasions where a specific bug has already been identified, but local resources lack sufficient time or knowledge to efficiently fix it. One of the people I've spoken to off-line mentioned a handful of known opensolaris bugs he'd really like to see resolved in NCP and would be willing to pay somebody to make it happen. Thanks for the info... -- Paul B. Henson | (909) 979-6361 | http://www.csupomona.edu/~henson/ Operating Systems and Network Analyst | hen...@csupomona.edu California State Polytechnic University | Pomona CA 91768 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. How is the performance of ZFS under FreeBSD? Is it comparable to that in Solaris, or still slower due to some needed compatibility layer? -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Probably, we need place a tag before zfs -- Opensource-ZFS or Oracle-ZFS after Solaris11 release. If it is true, these two ZFSes will definitely evolve into different directions. BTW, Did Oracle unveil the actual release date? We are also at the cross road... Thanks. Fred -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Fajar A. Nugraha Sent: 星期日, 三月 20, 2011 14:55 To: Pawel Jakub Dawidek Cc: openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10 On Sun, Mar 20, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Pawel Jakub Dawidek p...@freebsd.org wrote: On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. How is the performance of ZFS under FreeBSD? Is it comparable to that in Solaris, or still slower due to some needed compatibility layer? -- Fajar ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Fred Liu fred_...@issi.com wrote: Probably, we need place a tag before zfs -- Opensource-ZFS or Oracle-ZFS after Solaris11 release. If it is true, these two ZFSes will definitely evolve into different directions. BTW, Did Oracle unveil the actual release date? We are also at the cross road... The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS, they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it again, there is still a problem with syncing the ZFS ve3rsions from the OSS OpenSolaris continuation projects. The revision number introduced by Sun is only useful if there is no more than a single entity that introduces new features. For a reliable future for a distributed ZFS development, we would need something like the POSIX method to introduce tar extensions: a combination of a textual name for the entity that introduced the fature and a textual name for the feature. e.g. SCHILY-zfs-encryption Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.net (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote: The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS, they will harm the future of ZFS. If they Opensource it again, there is still a problem with syncing the ZFS ve3rsions from the OSS OpenSolaris continuation projects. For a while Apple was considering it, and if Ellison and Jobs can come to an agreement, it would certainly become very popular very quickly. Apple probably ships more UNIX(tm) devices than any other vendor (often over 3M units in a quarter). Using revenue as a metric gives similar results. And who says the Unix workstation market is dead? :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mar 20, 2011, at 14:33, Garrett D'Amore wrote: I hear from reliable sources that Apple is not doing anything with ZFS, so I would not look there for leadership. Given that one of the prominent (?) file system guys at Apple left to form his own ZFS company, I figured that was the case even before you stated the above: http://tinyurl.com/4jznw48 http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/how-zfs-is-slowly-making-its-way-to-mac-os-x.ars The ZFS Working Group is awesome news. I hope to hear of a bright future for ZFS on all operating systems. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 03/19/11 12:17 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 18/03/11 5:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and students ... and at this point want to start reevaluating our best migration option to move forward from Solaris 10. There's really nothing else available that is comparable to zfs (perhaps btrfs someday in the indefinite future, but who knows when that day might come), so our options would appear to be Solaris 11 Express, Nexenta (either NexentaStor or NexentaCore), and OpenIndiana (FreeBSD is occasionally mentioned as a possibility, but I don't really see that as suitable for our enterprise needs). Questions are: Do you care of your OS being open and not tight to only one company, and do you care for software and packaging compatibility and do you need payed support or not and do you need it right now or in the future? Do you want to tie yourself with Oracle and closed Solaris products? (even if unofficially there were saying that they might open code after S11 release) If you used closed product before, that might be your enterprise upgrade path. Just prepare to cache Oracle out and that is it. If you want to use free open source with ability to buy suport and all you want to use is zfs, then Nexenta is your way with their both free to use releases and commercially supported ones. Nexenta support development of Illumos that is future base of OpenIndiana, too. So Nexenta is something like what Sun previously was doing, they are actively developing it and you can have support for less money then from Oracle, I suppose. OpenIndiana is and will contiue to be closest you can get to Oracle Solaris releases. It shares software consolidations (and packaging, IPS,pkg) with closed brother. OpenIndiana has stable release in mind in near future, that might suit your needs. Dev OpenIndiana releases are (slowly) following path of OpenSolaris dev releases, so OpenIndiana can be right now Solaris 10 replacement (many people just continued to use OI dev) and in the future, with transition to Illumos base ahead in mind. I think that best thing you can do is to install OpenSolaris snv_134 (or 134b) and from that point you can see where you can go: To OpenIndiana dev and then follow Illumos development and wait for OpenIndiana stable , And try even closed Solaris Express 11. (with No zfs upgrade to Solaris Express version (!) - Be sure Not to do zfs and zpool upgrade to closed Solaris 11 express version, because you will be then locked-in in Oracle zfs versions.) I do not know how Nexenta could be installed in the same zpool in new BE but I suppose it can, since I know upgrading Nexenta use zfs BE's, too. That way, with multiple installs and sharing zfs between them, you are on safe ground of being able to test and choose to what will come in future and ,beside Oracle, there are at least 2 solutions now and in the future, that you can consider. I would personally like if one could buy support from Nexenta and continue to use OpenIndiana or Nexenta :) But Nexenta is more server-like and OpenIndiana is shooting to all-around solution. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. FreeBSD still gives equal (or higher) priority to ufs, and so some of the changes in Solaris and derivatives (illumos) to make certain things like NFS, CIFS, and COMSTAR/iSCSI work better with ZFS won't be present in FreeBSD. There are vendors who offer NexentaStor on hardware with full commercial support from a single vendor (granted they get backline support from Nexenta, but do you think ixSystems engineers personally fix bugs in FreeBSD?) Such vendors include PogoLinux and AreaData. I've also started conversations with Pogo about offering an OpenIndiana based workstation, which might be another option if you prefer more of a general purpose solution. - Garrett On Sat, 2011-03-19 at 02:16 +0100, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:26:37PM -0700, Michael DeMan wrote: ZFSv28 is in HEAD now and will be out in 8.3. ZFS + HAST in 9.x means being able to cluster off different hardware. In regards to OpenSolaris and Indiana - can somebody clarify the relationship there? It was clear with OpenSolaris that the latest/greatest ZFS would always be available since it was a guinea-pig product for cost conscious folks and served as an excellent area for Sun to get marketplace feedback and bug fixes done before rolling updates into full Solaris. To me it seems that Open Indiana is basically a green branch off of a dead tree - if I am wrong, please enlighten me. Illumos project was started as a fork of OpenSolaris when Oracle was still publishing OpenSolaris sources. Then Oracle closed OpenSolaris development, and decided to call upcoming (closed) versions Solaris 11 Express, with no source included. Illumos project continued the development based on the latest published OpenSolaris sources, and a bit later OpenIndiana *distribution* was announced to deliver a binary distro based on OpenSolaris/Illumos. So in short Illumos is the development project, which hosts the new sources, and OpenIndiana is a binary distro based on it. -- Pasi On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Nexenta are a great company (I'm no way affiliated with them btw), if for no other reason being willing to invest in Illumos and by that OpenIndiana and NCP (for which they charge nothing). If you need a large enterprise commercially backed storage server system, NextentaStor is the answer. If you want a CLI OS, NCP or OpenIndiana text only will fulfill that spot (there is also illumos-extra which is even more stripped down to bare minimum), if a GUI or desktop is required OpenIndiana has that covered. Whilst there isn't yet official commercial support for OpenIndiana, that is something that has been brought up and the feeling is that it is something that would like to be offered at some point in time, it is just the logistics and organization of that support has to be setup. If it became a deal breaker I'd suggest talking to a senior person of OI, as it possible something could be arranged. I expect we are no more than 6 months away from Illumos being the defacto open source foundation for all the major distributions, which will then start freeing up a lot of developer resources to continue and improve things, beyond this initial get everything together period. ZFS open source future is being hammered out, with hopefully a cross platform working body to promote and move it forward appearing. I know everyone involved is both eager to make sure it's truly open and portable (with support for Illumos/OI, FreeBSD, Linux and OS-X in working or in-progress) and that it has a future regardless of any code drops from Oracle (they are of course welcome if they come, but clearly at this point it can't be relied upon). Personally I think OpenIndiana with Illumos foundations, is a great enterprise quality open source OS with a great future and a bunch of really committed guys and gals behind it. My 2P, Deano -Original Message- From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Garrett D'Amore Sent: 18 March 2011 22:15 To: Paul B. Henson Cc: openindiana-disc...@openindiana.org; zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10 Thanks for thinking about us, Paul. A few quick thoughts: a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words (no X11.) It might well suit you. b) NCP 3 will not have an upgrade path to NCP 4. Its simply too much change in the underlying packaging. c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it. d) NCP 4 will make much more use of the illumos userland, and only use Debian when illumos doesn't have an equivalent. e) NCP comes entirely unsupported. NexentaStor is a commercial product with real support behind it, though. f) *Today*, NexentaStor 3 has newer code in it than NCP. That will be changing, as we will be keeping the two much more closely in sync starting with 3.1. g) If you want to self support, OpenIndiana or NCP are both good options. NCP has debian packaging, and lacks a bunch of the GUI goodies. NCP 3 is not as new as OI, but is probably a bit more proven. Hopefully the additional information is helpful to you. - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Fri, Mar 18, 2011 at 06:22:01PM -0700, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Newer versions of FreeBSD have newer ZFS code. Yes, we are at v28 at this point (the lastest open-source version). That said, ZFS on FreeBSD is kind of a 2nd class citizen still. [...] That's actually not true. There are more FreeBSD committers working on ZFS than on UFS. There are vendors who offer NexentaStor on hardware with full commercial support from a single vendor (granted they get backline support from Nexenta, but do you think ixSystems engineers personally fix bugs in FreeBSD?) [...] iXsystems works very closely with the FreeBSD project. They hire or contract quite a few FreeBSD committers (FYI I'm not one of them), so yes, they are definitely in position to fix bugs in FreeBSD, as well as develop new stuff and they do that. Just wanted to clarify few points:) -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com pgpOIZUClc1o8.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and students as well as about 1000 groups. Access is provided via NFSv4, CIFS (by samba), and http/https (including a local module allowing filesystem acl's to be respected via web access). This has worked reasonably well barring some ongoing issues with scalability (approximately a 2 hour reboot window on an x4500 with ~8000 zfs filesystems, complete breakage of live upgrade) and acl/chmod interaction madness. We were just about to start working on a cutover to OpenSolaris (for the in-kernel CIFS server, and quicker access to new features/developments) when Oracle finished assimilating Sun and killed off the OpenSolaris distribution. We've been sitting pat for a while to see how things ended up shaking out, and at this point want to start reevaluating our best migration option to move forward from Solaris 10. There's really nothing else available that is comparable to zfs (perhaps btrfs someday in the indefinite future, but who knows when that day might come), so our options would appear to be Solaris 11 Express, Nexenta (either NexentaStor or NexentaCore), and OpenIndiana (FreeBSD is occasionally mentioned as a possibility, but I don't really see that as suitable for our enterprise needs). Solaris 11 is the official successor to OpenSolaris, has commercial support, and the backing of a huge corporation which historically has contributed the majority of Solaris forward development. However, that corporation is Oracle, and frankly, I don't like doing business with Oracle. With no offense intended to the no doubt numerous talented and goodhearted people that might work there, Oracle is simply evil. We've dealt with Oracle for a long time (in addition to their database itself, we're a PeopleSoft shop) and a positive interaction with them is quite rare. Since they took over Sun, costs on licensing, support contracts, and hardware have increased dramatically, at least in the cases where we've actually been able to get a quote. Arguably, we are not their target market, and they make that quite clear ;). There's also been significant brain drain of prior Sun employees since the takeover, so while they might still continue to contribute the most money into Solaris development, they might not be the future source of the most innovation. Given our needs, and our budget, I really don't consider this a viable option. Nexenta, on the other hand, seems to be the kind of company I'd like to deal with. Relatively small, nimble, with a ton of former Sun zfs talent working for them, and what appears to be actual consideration for the needs of their customers. I think I'd more likely get my needs addressed through Nexenta, they've already started work on adding aclmode back and I've had some initial discussion with one of their engineers on the possibility of adding additional options such as denying or ignoring attempted chmod updates on objects with acls. It looks like they only offer commercial support for NexentaStor, not NexentaCore. Commercial support isn't a strict requirement, a sizable chunk of our infrastructure runs on a non-commercial linux distribution and open source software, but it can make management happier. NexentaStor seems positioned as a storage appliance, which isn't really what we need. I'm not particularly interested in a web gui or cli interface that hides the underlying complexity of the operating system and zfs, on the contrary, I want full access to the guts :). We have our zfs deployment integrated into our identity management system, which automatically provisions, destroys, and maintains filespace for our user/groups, as well as providing an API for end-users and administrators to manage quotas and other attributes. We also run apache with some custom modules. I still need to investigate further, but I'm not even sure if NexentaStor provides access into the underlying OS or encapsulates everything and only allows control through its own administrative functionality. NexentaCore is more of the raw operating system we're probably looking for, but with only community-based support. Given that NexentaCore and OpenIndiana are now both going to be based off of the illumos core, I'm not quite certain what's going to distinguish them. NexentaCore will continue to leverage debian packaging as opposed to IPS, and currently defaults to a GNU userland rather than native Solaris userland. However, I've read that the next version is going to switch to the solaris userland, so will no longer be different from OpenIndiana in that respect. OpenIndiana was initially positioned to be a binary compatible open-source equivalent to Solaris 11, such as CentOS is to Red Hat. However, given that Oracle has not released any of their internal development work on which Solaris 11 express is based, and
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On 18/03/11 5:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and students ... and at this point want to start reevaluating our best migration option to move forward from Solaris 10. There's really nothing else available that is comparable to zfs (perhaps btrfs someday in the indefinite future, but who knows when that day might come), so our options would appear to be Solaris 11 Express, Nexenta (either NexentaStor or NexentaCore), and OpenIndiana (FreeBSD is occasionally mentioned as a possibility, but I don't really see that as suitable for our enterprise needs). You're not the only institution asking this question; here's a couple of blog posts by Chris Siebenmann: * http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/OurFutureWithSolaris * http://utcc.utoronto.ca/~cks/space/blog/solaris/OurSolarisAlternatives regards --Toby ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
Thanks for thinking about us, Paul. A few quick thoughts: a) Nexenta Core Platform is a bare-bones OS. No GUI, in other words (no X11.) It might well suit you. b) NCP 3 will not have an upgrade path to NCP 4. Its simply too much change in the underlying packaging. c) NCP 4 is still 5-6 months away. We're still developing it. d) NCP 4 will make much more use of the illumos userland, and only use Debian when illumos doesn't have an equivalent. e) NCP comes entirely unsupported. NexentaStor is a commercial product with real support behind it, though. f) *Today*, NexentaStor 3 has newer code in it than NCP. That will be changing, as we will be keeping the two much more closely in sync starting with 3.1. g) If you want to self support, OpenIndiana or NCP are both good options. NCP has debian packaging, and lacks a bunch of the GUI goodies. NCP 3 is not as new as OI, but is probably a bit more proven. Hopefully the additional information is helpful to you. - Garrett ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Not here quite yet, but it is something being looked at by an F500 that I am currently on contract with. www.freenas.org, www.ixsystems.com. Not saying this would be the right solution by any means, but for that 'corporate barrier', sometimes the option to get both the hardware and ZFS from the same place, with support, helps out. - mike On Mar 18, 2011, at 2:56 PM, Paul B. Henson wrote: We've been running Solaris 10 for the past couple of years, primarily to leverage zfs to provide storage for about 40,000 faculty, staff, and students as well as about 1000 groups. Access is provided via NFSv4, CIFS (by samba), and http/https (including a local module allowing filesystem acl's to be respected via web access). This has worked reasonably well barring some ongoing issues with scalability (approximately a 2 hour reboot window on an x4500 with ~8000 zfs filesystems, complete breakage of live upgrade) and acl/chmod interaction madness. We were just about to start working on a cutover to OpenSolaris (for the in-kernel CIFS server, and quicker access to new features/developments) when Oracle finished assimilating Sun and killed off the OpenSolaris distribution. We've been sitting pat for a while to see how things ended up shaking out, and at this point want to start reevaluating our best migration option to move forward from Solaris 10. There's really nothing else available that is comparable to zfs (perhaps btrfs someday in the indefinite future, but who knows when that day might come), so our options would appear to be Solaris 11 Express, Nexenta (either NexentaStor or NexentaCore), and OpenIndiana (FreeBSD is occasionally mentioned as a possibility, but I don't really see that as suitable for our enterprise needs). Solaris 11 is the official successor to OpenSolaris, has commercial support, and the backing of a huge corporation which historically has contributed the majority of Solaris forward development. However, that corporation is Oracle, and frankly, I don't like doing business with Oracle. With no offense intended to the no doubt numerous talented and goodhearted people that might work there, Oracle is simply evil. We've dealt with Oracle for a long time (in addition to their database itself, we're a PeopleSoft shop) and a positive interaction with them is quite rare. Since they took over Sun, costs on licensing, support contracts, and hardware have increased dramatically, at least in the cases where we've actually been able to get a quote. Arguably, we are not their target market, and they make that quite clear ;). There's also been significant brain drain of prior Sun employees since the takeover, so while they might still continue to contribute the most money into Solaris dev elopment, they might not be the future source of the most innovation. Given our needs, and our budget, I really don't consider this a viable option. Nexenta, on the other hand, seems to be the kind of company I'd like to deal with. Relatively small, nimble, with a ton of former Sun zfs talent working for them, and what appears to be actual consideration for the needs of their customers. I think I'd more likely get my needs addressed through Nexenta, they've already started work on adding aclmode back and I've had some initial discussion with one of their engineers on the possibility of adding additional options such as denying or ignoring attempted chmod updates on objects with acls. It looks like they only offer commercial support for NexentaStor, not NexentaCore. Commercial support isn't a strict requirement, a sizable chunk of our infrastructure runs on a non-commercial linux distribution and open source software, but it can make management happier. NexentaStor seems positioned as a storage appliance, which isn't really what we need. I'm not particularly interested in a web gui or cli interface that hides the underly ing complexity of the operating system and zfs, on the contrary, I want full access to the guts :). We have our zfs deployment integrated into our identity management system, which automatically provisions, destroys, and maintains filespace for our user/groups, as well as providing an API for end-users and administrators to manage quotas and other attributes. We also run apache with some custom modules. I still need to investigate further, but I'm not even sure if NexentaStor provides access into the underlying OS or encapsulates everything and only allows control through its own administrative functionality. NexentaCore is more of the raw operating system we're probably looking for, but with only community-based support. Given that NexentaCore and OpenIndiana are now both going to be based off of the illumos core, I'm not quite certain what's going to distinguish them.
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
ZFSv28 is in HEAD now and will be out in 8.3. ZFS + HAST in 9.x means being able to cluster off different hardware. In regards to OpenSolaris and Indiana - can somebody clarify the relationship there? It was clear with OpenSolaris that the latest/greatest ZFS would always be available since it was a guinea-pig product for cost conscious folks and served as an excellent area for Sun to get marketplace feedback and bug fixes done before rolling updates into full Solaris. To me it seems that Open Indiana is basically a green branch off of a dead tree - if I am wrong, please enlighten me. On Mar 18, 2011, at 6:16 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing... Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 r...@karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et elementært imperativ for alle pedagoger å unngå eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer på norsk. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] best migration path from Solaris 10
On Mar 18, 2011, at 21:16, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote: I think we all feel the same pain with Oracle's purchase of Sun. FreeBSD that has commercial support for ZFS maybe? Fbsd currently has a very old zpool version, not suitable for running with SLOGs, since if you lose it, you may lose the pool, which isn't very amusing... For commercial FreeBSD support: http://www.freebsd.org/commercial/commercial.html ZFSv28 has been commited to HEAD / 9.x: http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-current/2011-February/023132.html and there's patches available for 8.x: http://people.freebsd.org/~mm/patches/zfs/v28/ http://lists.freebsd.org/pipermail/freebsd-fs/ Heck, ZFS on Mac OS X may be available (again) by this summer: http://tinyurl.com/68eg6bf http://arstechnica.com/apple/news/2011/03/how-zfs-is-slowly-making-its-way-to-mac-os-x.ars Oracle has said that they will distribute updates to approved CDDL or other open source- licensed code following full releases of our enterprise Solaris operating system. http://unixconsole.blogspot.com/2010/08/internal-oracle-memo-leaked-on-solaris.html I guess we'll see what happens once Solaris 11 comes out officially. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
