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 bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us
wrote:
On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D'Amore
On May 25, 2011 7:15 AM, Garrett Dapos;Amore garr...@nexenta.com 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
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
Peter Jeremy peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com 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
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?
--
No
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
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 frank.vanda...@gmail.com wrote:
Op 24-05-11
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'd be
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com 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
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
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com 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
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
Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com 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
--
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Garrett D'Amore garr...@nexenta.com 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
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, by
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
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme
frank.vanda...@gmail.comwrote:
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?
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
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us 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
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org wrote:
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote:
The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
interference. Vendors who want to participate in defining an
Paul Kraus p...@kraus-haus.org 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
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
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 committee
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 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,
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
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.
--
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 what
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com 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 :
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 May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com 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
On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com 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
Hi Brandon,
Thanks for the details. Sounds to me like Nexenta is in the lead!
Kind regards,
Hans Rattink
2011/5/24 Richard Elling richard.ell...@gmail.com
On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
richard.ell...@gmail.com
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 i...@ianshome.com wrote:
On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon
On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High bh...@freaks.com 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
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com 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
On May 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brandon High wrote:
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com 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
43 matches
Mail list logo
