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
The community of developers working on ZFS continues to grow, as does
the diversity of companies betting big on ZFS. We wanted a forum for
these developers to coordinate their efforts and exchange ideas. The
ZFS working group was formed to coordinate these development efforts.
The working group
snip
Hi Matt,
That's looks really good, I've been meaning to implement a ZFS compressor
(using a two pass, LZ4 + Arithmetic Entropy), so nice to see a route with
which this can be done.
One question, is the extendibility of RAID and other similar systems, my
quick perusal makes me thinks this is
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 12:55 PM, Deano de...@rattie.demon.co.uk wrote:
snip
Hi Matt,
That's looks really good, I've been meaning to implement a ZFS compressor
(using a two pass, LZ4 + Arithmetic Entropy), so nice to see a route with
which this can be done.
Cool! New compression
Hi all
I have a few servers running openindiana 148, and it's been running rather well
for some time. Lately, however, we've seen some hichups that may be related to
the platform, rather than the hardware. The actual errors have been variable.
Some issues were due to some supermicro backplanes
I've finally returned to this dedup testing project, trying to get a handle
on why performance is so terrible. At the moment I'm re-running tests and
monitoring memory_throttle_count, to see if maybe that's what's causing the
limit. But while that's in progress and I'm still thinking...
I
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
On 2011-May-26 03:02:04 +0800, Matthew Ahrens mahr...@delphix.com wrote:
The first product of the working group is the design for a ZFS on-disk
versioning method that will allow for distributed development of ZFS
on-disk format changes without further explicit coordination. This
method eliminates
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 3:08 PM, Peter Jeremy
peter.jer...@alcatel-lucent.com wrote:
On 2011-May-26 03:02:04 +0800, Matthew Ahrens mahr...@delphix.com wrote:
Looks good.
Thanks for taking the time to look at this. More comments inline below.
pool open (zpool import and implicit import
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 2:23 PM, Edward Ned Harvey
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensola...@nedharvey.com wrote:
I've finally returned to this dedup testing project, trying to get a handle
on why performance is so terrible. At the moment I'm re-running tests and
monitoring memory_throttle_count,
From: Matthew Ahrens [mailto:mahr...@delphix.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2011 6:50 PM
The DDT is a ZAP object, so it is an on-disk hashtable, free of O(log(n))
rebalancing operations. It is written asynchronously, from syncing
context. That said, for each block written (unique or not),
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 03:50:09PM -0700, Matthew Ahrens wrote:
That said, for each block written (unique or not), the DDT must be updated,
which means reading and then writing the block that contains that dedup
table entry, and the indirect blocks to get to it. With a reasonably large
DDT,
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:59:19PM +0200, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
The systems where we have had issues, are two 100TB boxes, with some
160TB raw storage each, so licensing this with nexentastor will be
rather expensive. What would you suggest? Will a solaris express
install give us good
Hi,
We have a Sun/Oracle Fishworks appliance that we have spent a good
amount of $ on. This is a great box and we love it, although the EDU
discounts that Sun used to provide for hardware and support contracts
seem to have dried up so the cost of supporting it moving forward is
still
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:01 PM, Matt Weatherford m...@u.washington.eduwrote:
pike# zpool get version internal
NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
internal version 28 default
pike# zpool get version external-J4400-12x1TB
NAME PROPERTY VALUESOURCE
Just a ping for any further updates, as well as a crosspost to migrate
the thread to zfs-discuss (from -crypto-).
Is there any further information I can provide? What's going on with
that zpool history, and does it tell you anything about the chances
of recovering the actual key used?
On Thu,
38 matches
Mail list logo
