Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

ZFS, the Last Word in File Systems?

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the no-point-discussing-I-guess dept.

guigouz writes "Sun is carrying a feature story about its new ZFS File System - ZFS, the dynamic new file system in Sun's Solaris 10 Operating System (Solaris OS), will make you forget everything you thought you knew about file systems. ZFS will be available on all Solaris 10 OS-supported platforms, and all existing applications will run with it. Moreover, ZFS complements Sun's storage management portfolio, including the Sun StorEdge QFS software, which is ideal for sharing business data."

5 of 564 comments (clear)

  1. Two things... by rincebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1) Even Sun has succumbed to recursive acronyms, now.

    2) Is it just me, or is the post surprisingly bereft of unique details? I mean, integration with all existing applications is rather assumed, given that it's a file system and all...

    --
    It's only an insult if it's not true.
  2. Hmf. by BJH · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Logically, the next question is if ZFS' 128 bits is enough. According to Bonwick, it has to be. "Populating 128-bit file systems would exceed the quantum limits of earth-based storage. You couldn't fill a 128-bit storage pool without boiling the oceans."

    So, what was the point of creating a 128-bit filesystem?

    -1, Marketing Hype.

    *Yawn*

  3. Just better than the old stuff from Sun by Ewan · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Reading the article, all I see is Sun saying how bad their old stuff was, e.g.:

    Consider this case: To create a pool, to create three file systems, and then to grow the pool--5 logical steps--5 simple ZFS commands are required, as opposed to 28 steps with a traditional file system and volume manager.

    and
    Moreover, these commands are all constant-time and complete in just a few seconds. Traditional file systems and volumes often take hours to configure. In the case above, ZFS reduces the time required to complete the tasks from 40 minutes to under 10 seconds.


    Compared to AIX or HP-UX, 28 steps is shockingly bad, both have had much simpler logical volume management for several versions now (AIX for 5 years or more? certainly as long as I have used it). The existing Solaris 9 logical volume infrastructure is years behind the competition, this is bringing it up to date, but not putting it far ahead.

    Ewan
  4. What I really want to see in a file system... by kcbrown · · Score: 5, Insightful
    ...and that I haven't seen in any file system announced to date, is a way of bundling multiple filesystem operations into a single atomic transaction that can be rolled back. This would clearly require an addition of four system calls (one to begin a transaction, one to commit it, one to roll it back, and one to set the default action, commit or rollback, on exit).

    Such a feature would rock, because it would be possible to make things like installers completely atomic: interrupt the installer process and the whole thing rolls back.

    --
    Use 'slashdot stuff' in the subject line in any email you send me if you want to get past the spam filter.
  5. Re:64 bits is awfully big already by pslam · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Yeah, its probably marketing hype now, but in 5 years, what about 10? Just because we can't do it now doesn't mean that we should stop progress.

    No, precisely because we can't do it now, and for the very predictable future, we shouldn't be wasting all that disk space, access and CPU time for a boundary that no production system is likely to ever reach before they get upgraded. That's just practicality.

    Seagate apparently sold 18.3 million desktop drives last year. Assuming they're all about 120GB (which is generous of me), that would be about 17.6*10^18 bits. Guess what, that's 2^64 bits. Yes, you would have to buy every single desktop hard drive Seagate shipped in the last year to have the capacity to fill a 64 bit filesystem. And find space for 18 million drives. And a power station to deliver the several hundred megawatts you'd need.

    Even at 2 times drive capacity growth per year that's still a ridiculously unattainable figure. In 14 years time you'd only need to buy 1000 drives (which are now 2000TB each). But 14 years is a geological time scale when it comes to computers. You'd have wasted 14 years of CPU time and disk space devoted to those extra 64 bits.

    If you still think 64 bits isn't enough, how about 96 bits? It would take 46 years before hard disks were big and cheap enough so you could fill the filesystem by buying 1000 of them. But no, they chose 128 bits because it sounded good.