Re:Well, how does a Honda Civic ...
on
EXT4 Is Coming
·
· Score: 1
That is correct. Support for that is in-beta now.
Meanwhile, instead of giving the entire disk to the pool, you can just give a portion of it.
Mirror the bootable root and system with SVM, and then assign all of the rest to the ZFS pool and go from there.
dks
Re:Well, how does a Honda Civic ...
on
EXT4 Is Coming
·
· Score: 4, Informative
This is true, but let's look at the case of 1-2 drives:
Assuming we still want mirroring or volume management on our two drives: The overhead is still greater for SVM or for linux md and sistina lvm. Both require more administration knowledge, time, and commands to accomplish the same tasks that ZFS can do in a couple commands. (Yes, I'm aware that mdadm helps the process a *bit*, but it's still obtuse.) Anyone who has setup either knows how annoying anything is with either choice. (having to micromanage partitions, etc.)
The biggest thing for ZFS in a ``small'' 1-2 drive usage case is, in my opinion, the pooling: ZFS doesn't require one to set volume sizes in advance. Since everything pulls out of a common pool, the size of volumes can grow or shrink accordingly. (Affected by free pool space or volume quotas.) So, that means that one can just create their volumes, and not have to worry about making them the wrong size.
I'd also argue that fault tolerance is important anywhere, large or small.
Another thing is on-disk, low overhead, compression that can be enabled just by toggling one filesystem paramater, live. For a lot of things that people store, this compression would save a lot of space.
They really put a lot of thought in ZFS. It scales amazingly well, from small to large. I'm not really giving it justice explaining it here, so I'd encourage you to look at the documentation with an open mind before just writing it off as an ``enterprise only'' thing.
dks (I have no affiliation with Sun in any way.
Re:Well, how does a Honda Civic ...
on
EXT4 Is Coming
·
· Score: 3, Informative
This is simply not true. ZFS is not just for big iron. It's strongest feature is perhaps the melding of the volume manager and raid into one single unit greatly simplifies administration. Not to mention other nice features, either new os greatly simplified from their past versions, such as pooling, dynamic striping, CoW, instant snapshots and cloning, fault tolerance, etc.
I'd suggest reading through these links before spreading more mis-information:
Hold on there chief. You just used reliable and Linux in the same sentence, right after "piss poor commercial substitute."
I hate to bust your bubble there linux boy, but those "piss poor commercial substitute"s like AIX and Solaris are *light years* ahead of x86 & linux reliability, stability, snd scalibility. Solaris just doesn't die these days. Not to mention its much better thought out over the years. I wish linux had the stability that solaris did. (i.e. compare the kernel module loader system in linux vs solaris. linux is a *nightmare* to support clearcase on, while solaris is a piece of cake. I won't start on linux nfs and autofs implementation vs solaris.) I used to be a non believer of Solaris, until I got to seriously use it. It blows the doors off linux in the server world... hell, even my workstation for that matter. You definately get what you pay for.
Not to say that linux is bad or doesn't have its place. Its place just isn't where rock solid reliability is needed. It just needs a *LOT* of work to get anywhere near the "piss poor commercial subsistute".
I think you've missed the point entirely. This also goes in with the story being mis-named. One of the nicer things about having serial console access to your machine is you have the ability to do things like if you were directly at the console... I don't think you're going to drop your system to single user mode while using the network. Or, if you're configureing something, and you accidentally mess up network connectivity, its a very nice backup. Also, on real hardware like suns, you can send serial breaks over the line, get into firmware, and do what is necessary, whether it be synching the machine due to crash, or whatever.
This story is also missnamed.. a serial console server is a server with a lot of serial ports on it:) (used to connect all your serial console machines togother)
Now, I'm not entirely sure what the use of a serial console is under osx, but the impression I'm getting is that its getting a bit more useful each revision of that OS. But under any other unix, not having a serial console in a production enviroment is just asking for trouble.
At least someone out there gets the point: I didn't mean for my post to become flamebait...:(
The thing MS found out how to do is make things consistant so everything worked the same way. Look at the current state of *nix programs: before KDE and GNOME, The only consistance between programs was non-existant or an accident. Now, IMHO, we need a single, unified desktop/core libraries/community, because most people will not want to deal with differing libraries and versions.
---
Question Authority, but raise your hand first!
I have especially noticed that with the newer versions of KDE(2), it is getting to the point where my mom and sisters could actually use it instead of windows. BillyG was right when he decided to integrate components together, he just did it for the wrong reason. Congrats to the KDE team, keep up the good work!
---
Question authority, but raise your hand first!
Slashdot Mirror
That is correct. Support for that is in-beta now.
Meanwhile, instead of giving the entire disk to the pool, you can just give a portion of it.
Mirror the bootable root and system with SVM, and then assign all of the rest to the ZFS pool and go from there.
dks
This is true, but let's look at the case of 1-2 drives:
Assuming we still want mirroring or volume management on our two drives:
The overhead is still greater for SVM or for linux md and sistina lvm. Both require more administration knowledge, time, and commands to accomplish the same tasks that ZFS can do in a couple commands. (Yes, I'm aware that mdadm helps the process a *bit*, but it's still obtuse.) Anyone who has setup either knows how annoying anything is with either choice. (having to micromanage partitions, etc.)
The biggest thing for ZFS in a ``small'' 1-2 drive usage case is, in my opinion, the pooling: ZFS doesn't require one to set volume sizes in advance. Since everything pulls out of a common pool, the size of volumes can grow or shrink accordingly. (Affected by free pool space or volume quotas.) So, that means that one can just create their volumes, and not have to worry about making them the wrong size.
I'd also argue that fault tolerance is important anywhere, large or small.
Another thing is on-disk, low overhead, compression that can be enabled just by toggling one filesystem paramater, live. For a lot of things that people store, this compression would save a lot of space.
They really put a lot of thought in ZFS. It scales amazingly well, from small to large. I'm not really giving it justice explaining it here, so I'd encourage you to look at the documentation with an open mind before just writing it off as an ``enterprise only'' thing.
dks
(I have no affiliation with Sun in any way.
This is simply not true. ZFS is not just for big iron. It's strongest feature is perhaps the melding of the volume manager and raid into one single unit greatly simplifies administration. Not to mention other nice features, either new os greatly simplified from their past versions, such as pooling, dynamic striping, CoW, instant snapshots and cloning, fault tolerance, etc.
m e.html - Why ZFS for home
I'd suggest reading through these links before spreading more mis-information:
http://unixconsult.org/zfs_vs_lvm.html - ZFS vs. Linux Raid vs. Linux LVM vs. Linux LVM + Raid
http://uadmin.blogspot.com/2006/05/why-zfs-for-ho
dks
Nope... the power in Cincinnati is pretty reliable actually.
dks
Hold on there chief. You just used reliable and Linux in the same sentence, right after "piss poor commercial substitute."
I hate to bust your bubble there linux boy, but those "piss poor commercial substitute"s like AIX and Solaris are *light years* ahead of x86 & linux reliability, stability, snd scalibility. Solaris just doesn't die these days. Not to mention its much better thought out over the years. I wish linux had the stability that solaris did. (i.e. compare the kernel module loader system in linux vs solaris. linux is a *nightmare* to support clearcase on, while solaris is a piece of cake. I won't start on linux nfs and autofs implementation vs solaris.)
I used to be a non believer of Solaris, until I got to seriously use it. It blows the doors off linux in the server world... hell, even my workstation for that matter. You definately get what you pay for.
Not to say that linux is bad or doesn't have its place. Its place just isn't where rock solid reliability is needed. It just needs a *LOT* of work to get anywhere near the "piss poor commercial subsistute".
I'll take Solaris over linux any day now.
dks
I think you've missed the point entirely.
:) (used to connect all your serial console machines togother)
This also goes in with the story being mis-named. One of the nicer things about having serial console access to your machine is you have the ability to do things like if you were directly at the console... I don't think you're going to drop your system to single user mode while using the network. Or, if you're configureing something, and you accidentally mess up network connectivity, its a very nice backup. Also, on real hardware like suns, you can send serial breaks over the line, get into firmware, and do what is necessary, whether it be synching the machine due to crash, or whatever.
This story is also missnamed.. a serial console server is a server with a lot of serial ports on it
Now, I'm not entirely sure what the use of a serial console is under osx, but the impression I'm getting is that its getting a bit more useful each revision of that OS. But under any other unix, not having a serial console in a production enviroment is just asking for trouble.
David
That might give a new meaning to "shock and awe"
dks
Actually, I think its more like:
1.) Release WinCE code
2.) ???
3.) PROFIT
-dks
At least someone out there gets the point: I didn't mean for my post to become flamebait... :(
The thing MS found out how to do is make things consistant so everything worked the same way. Look at the current state of *nix programs: before KDE and GNOME, The only consistance between programs was non-existant or an accident. Now, IMHO, we need a single, unified desktop/core libraries/community, because most people will not want to deal with differing libraries and versions.
---
Question Authority, but raise your hand first!
I have especially noticed that with the newer versions of KDE(2), it is getting to the point where my mom and sisters could actually use it instead of windows. BillyG was right when he decided to integrate components together, he just did it for the wrong reason. Congrats to the KDE team, keep up the good work!
---
Question authority, but raise your hand first!