Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 application. Not everyone will be accepted or partake in the meetings, but anyone can apply. Right now the group is secret - there's no or little information on who/when/where or anything. It's basically the ZFS Standards Mafia maybe you guys live by.. Rule #1 - Don't talk about ZFS club ;) ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GPU acceleration of ZFS
On Tue, May 10, 2011 at 10:29 PM, Anatoly legko...@fastmail.fm wrote: Good day, I think ZFS can take advantage of using GPU for sha256 calculation, encryption and maybe compression. Modern video card, like 5xxx or 6xxx ATI HD Series can do calculation of sha256 50-100 times faster than modern 4 cores CPU. kgpu project for linux shows nice results. 'zfs scrub' would work freely on high performance ZFS pools. The only problem that there is no AMD/Nvidia drivers for Solaris that support hardware-assisted OpenCL. Is anyone interested in it? This isn't technically true. The NVIDIA drivers support compute, but there's other parts of the toolchain missing. /* I don't know about ATI/AMD, but I'd guess they likely don't support compute across platforms */ /* Disclaimer - The company I work for has a working HMPP compiler for Solaris/FreeBSD and we may soon support CUDA */ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] native ZFS on Linux
Ray Van Dolson wrote: On Sat, Feb 12, 2011 at 09:18:26AM -0800, David E. Anderson wrote: I see that Pinguy OS, an uber-Ubuntu o/s, includes native ZFS support. Any pointers to more info on this? Probably using this[1]. doubtful.. It's more likely based on http://zfsonlinux.org/ Why not post to the distro mailing list or look at the source though? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
Linder, Doug wrote: Why do you want them to GPL ZFS? In what way would that save you annoyance? I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily GPL'd. Yes. I don't really care which specific license it is, as long as it allows ZFS to go into Linux. feeding-trollsI'm very happy it's not in linux since linux is usually a low quality pile of crap cobbled together. If you're not writing the code to zfs or btrfs then you don't get a vote and just making noise on a public mailing list/feeing-trolls How about doing some work instead of just complaining about things that are outside of our control.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS ... open source moving forward?
The reason for not being able to use ZFS under Linux is not the license used by ZFS but the missing will for integration. Several lawyers explained already why adding ZFS to the Linux would just create a collective work that is permitted by the GPL. lalala.. http://zfsonlinux.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [Totally TO] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications
Garrett D'Amore wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 21:25 +1200, Ian Collins wrote: On 08/19/10 08:51 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote: Ian Collinsi...@ianshome.com wrote: A quick test with a C++ application I'm working with which does a lot of string and container manipulation shows it runs about 10% slower in 64 bit mode on AMD64 and about the same in 32 or 64 bit on a core i7. Built with -fast. This may be a result of the way the libC you are using was compiled. Try to compare performance tests that only depend on code you did write by your own. Most of the C++ standard library (at least the containers part I'm using) is header only code, so it is mainly code I compile my self. Not using libC is somewhat impractical in real world applications! Not if the program isn't written in C++! The binary compatibility problems (plus a million other reasons) of C++ make me strongly urge people not to choose C++ as the language for their project unless they are forced to by other constraints. (And then they will have to live with the consequent problems.) I wish you luck in encouraging people to not use C++. While I personally prefer C there is a strong uptake in C++ adoption that is only likely to increase. :) Anyway.. just because you don't have any solution to replacing libCrun doesn't mean you have to blacklist the whole language... (keeping in mind that hotspot and a ton of your java/enterprise stack on Solaris is written or dependent on C++) (Why is this being discussed on zfs-discuss) ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications
Garrett D'Amore wrote: On Thu, 2010-08-19 at 20:14 +0100, Daniel Taylor wrote: On 19 Aug 2010, at 19:42, Garrett D'Amore wrote: Out of interest, what language do you recommend? Depends on the job -- I'm a huge fan of choosing the right tool for the job. I just think C++ tries to be jack of all trades and winds up being master of none. For the work I do, I mostly prefer C. (My perspective is biased, but...) End users from my experience and perspective pick a language that offers them a balance between easy to use programming model and performance. C++ is a language standard and not a jack of all trades... It's like saying don't use ZFS because it's trying to be jack of all trades and used across many different industries and applications (successfully) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] 64-bit vs 32-bit applications
Garrett D'Amore wrote: That is a major concern. But the problem is also that the ABIs created by different compilers vary. You can't mix g++ and studio generated code, for example. That's not FUD, its technical fact. Not today, but it's my understanding this will be possible in the future.. (At least in theory) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Tim Cook wrote: On Mon, Aug 16, 2010 at 10:21 AM, David Dyer-Bennet d...@dd-b.net mailto:d...@dd-b.net wrote: On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote: Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't retrospectively change the license on already released code but they can put a different (non-OSS) license on any new code. That's true. However, if Oracle makes a binary release of BTRFS-derived code, they must release the source as well; BTRFS is under the GPL. BTRFS can be under any license they want, they own the code. There's absolutely nothing preventing them from dual-licensing it. So, if they're going to use it in any way as a product, they have to release the source. If they want to use it just internally they can do anything they want, of course. No, no they don't. You're under the misconception that they no longer own the code just because they released a copy as GPL. That is not true. Anyone ELSE who uses the GPL code must release modifications if they wish to distribute it due to the GPL. The original author is free to license the code as many times under as many conditions as they like, and release or not release subsequent changes they make to their own code. I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Joerg Schilling wrote: C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal background. The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it. If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can relicense it under any license they like. Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you so dense to believe 1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs? 2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code you can't separate the two of them. Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't believe.. ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Tim Cook wrote: 2010/8/16 C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org mailto:codest...@osunix.org Joerg Schilling wrote: C. Bergström codest...@osunix.org mailto:codest...@osunix.org wrote: I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed BTRFS. No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much already to be available under anything, but GPLv2 If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed about legal background. The question is: who wrote the btrfs code and who owns it. If Oracle pays him for writing the code, then Oracle owns the code and can relicense it under any license they like. Why don't all you license trolls go crawl under a rock.. Are you so dense to believe 1) Only Oracle devs have by now contributed to btrfs? 2) That it's so tightly intermingled with the linux kernel code you can't separate the two of them. Just STFU already and go check commit logs and source if you don't believe.. ZFS-discuss != BTRFS+Oracle-license troll-ml Before making yourself look like a fool, I suggest you look at the BTRFS commits. Can you find a commit submitted by anyone BUT Oracle employees? I've yet to see any significant contribution from anyone outside the walls of Oracle to the project. I think I've probably dug into the issue a bit deeper than you.. http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/03/zfs-vs-btrfs-comparison.html Oh. .and if you don't believe me ask Josef Bacik from RH.. I'm not directing this at anyone specifically.. Pretty please.. STFU and go back to trolling somewhere else... ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS development moving behind closed doors
Gary Mills wrote: If this information is correct, http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?threadID=133043 further development of ZFS will take place behind closed doors. Opensolaris will become the internal development version of Solaris with no public distributions. The community has been abandoned. It was a community of system administrators and nearly no developers. While this may make big news the real impact is probably pretty small. Source code updates will get tossed over the fence and developer partners (Intel) will still have access to onnv-gate. In a way i see this as a very good thing. It will not *force* the existing (small) community of companies and developers to band together to actually work together. From there the real open source momentum can happen instead of everyone depending on Sun/Oracle to give them a free lunch. The first step that I've been adamant about is making it easier for developers to play and get their hands on it.. If we can enable that it'll swing things around regardless of what mega-corp does or doesn't do... Just my 0.02$ ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Opensolaris is apparently dead
Erast wrote: On 08/13/2010 01:39 PM, Tim Cook wrote: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/08/13/opensolaris_is_dead/ I'm a bit surprised at this development... Oracle really just doesn't get it. The part that's most disturbing to me is the fact they won't be releasing nightly snapshots. It appears they've stopped Illumos in its tracks before it really even got started (perhaps that explains the timing of this press release) Wrong. Be patient, with the pace of current Illumos development it soon will have all the closed binaries liberated and ready to sync up with promised ON code drops as dictated by GPL and CDDL licenses. Illumos is just a source tree at this point. You're delusional, misinformed, or have some big wonderful secret if you believe you have all the bases covered for a pure open source distribution though.. What's closed binaries liberated really mean to you? Does it mean a. You copy over the binary libCrun and continue to use some version of Sun Studio to build onnv-gate b. You debug the problems with and start to use ancient gcc-3 (at the probably expense of performance regressions which most people would find unacceptable) c. Your definition is narrow and has missed some closed binaries I think it's great people are still hopeful, working hard and going to steward this forward, but I wonder.. What pace are you referring to? The last commit to illumos-gate was 6 days ago and you're already not even keeping it in sync.. Can you even build it yet and if so where's the binaries? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Oracle to no longer support ZFS on OpenSolaris?
Ken Gunderson wrote: Greetings All: Granted there has been much fear, uncertainty, and doubt following Oracle's take over of Sun, but I ran across this on a FreeBSD mailing list post dated 4/20/2010 ...Seems that Oracle won't offer support for ZFS on opensolaris This guy probably 1) Doesn't know the difference between OpenSolaris and Solaris 2) Doesn't know anything 3) Doesn't cite a source Stop wasting everyone's time with speculation and FUD ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Troy Campbell wrote: On 02/24/10 12:04 PM, Marc Nicholas wrote: On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 2:02 PM, Troy Campbell troy.campb...@fedex.com mailto:troy.campb...@fedex.com wrote: http://www.oracle.com/technology/community/sun-oracle-community-continuity.html Half way down it says: Will Oracle support Java and OpenSolaris User Groups, as Sun has? Yes, Oracle will indeed enthusiastically support the Java User Groups, OpenSolaris User Groups, and other Sun-related user group communities (including the Java Champions), just as Oracle actively supports hundreds of product-oriented user groups today. We will be reaching out to these groups soon. Supporting doesn't necessarily mean continuing the Open Source projects! More info: http://itmanagement.earthweb.com/osrc/article.php/3867771/OpenSolaris-Alive-and-Well-at-Oracle.htm There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack, Roberts said. It's important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open. This will be a balancing act, one that we'll get right sometimes, but may not always. - From the feedback data I've seen customers dislike this type of licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I'd strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing more I don't know what alternative I could recommend though.. (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [indiana-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Thomas Burgess wrote: There may be some things we choose not to open source going forward, similar to how MySQL manages certain value-add[s] at the top of the stack, Roberts said. It's important to understand the plan now is to deliver value again out of our IP investment, while at the same time measuring that with continuing to deliver OpenSolaris in the open. This will be a balancing act, one that we'll get right sometimes, but may not always. - From the feedback data I've seen customers dislike this type of licensing model most. Dan may or may not be reading this, but I'd strongly discourage this approach. Without knowing more I don't know what alternative I could recommend though.. (Too bad I missed that irc meeting..) ./C I may be wrong, but isn't this already what they do? I mean, there is a bunch of proprietary stuff in solaris that didn't make it into opensolaris. I thought this was how they did things anyways, or am i misunderstanding something. Not exactly.. From my understanding.. (and I put a lot of time removing the proprietary stuff) is that for OpenSolaris the closed parts simply weren't available under and open source license. example.. tail/cli - Probably from 20+ years ago and it's exact origins may not be all known libc - The wide character support in libc from IBM, who isn't exactly open source friendly drivers - I didn't look into specific things with drivers and just never used them. C++ runtime/compilers - no comment :) With regards to the 7000 series or other appliances which may bring the trolls further... Personally, I consider that an appliance and not OpenSolaris proper.. I don't know where I draw the line, but I'd be disappointed if zfs didn't have all the full features in OpenSolaris, but also surprised if the landscape and management interfaces were made open source. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] future of OpenSolaris
Eugen Leitl wrote: Oracle's silence is starting to become a bit ominous. What are the future options for zfs, should OpenSolaris be left dead in the water by Suracle? I have no insight into who core zfs developers are (have any been fired by Sun even prior to the merger?), and who's paying them. Assuming a worst case scenario, what would be the best candidate for a fork? Nexenta? Debian already included FreeBSD as a kernel flavor into its fold, it seems Nexenta could be also a good candidate. Maybe anyone in the know could provide a short blurb on what the state is, and what the options are. Without saying anything negative about Nexenta I would strongly recommend you go try to send a single patch to their equivalent of onnv-gate before recommending it as any sort of replacement for OpenSolaris. Generally, I think the few open source engineers who actually work with the code are taking a wait-n-see approach. If doom-n-gloom will happen there is nothing we can do to stop it and might as well enjoy the free ride while it's there. Sending patches and encouraging the open source model for OpenSolaris directly is probably the best way to convince Oracle it makes business sense to maintain things as they are. ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] freeNAS moves to Linux from FreeBSD
Andrey Kuzmin wrote: On Tue, Dec 8, 2009 at 7:02 PM, Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us wrote: On Mon, 7 Dec 2009, Michael DeMan (OA) wrote: Args for FreeBSD + ZFS: - Limited budget - We are familiar with managing FreeBSD. - We are familiar with tuning FreeBSD. - Licensing model Args against OpenSolaris + ZFS: - Hardware compatibility - Lack of knowledge for tuning and associated costs for training staff to learn 'yet one more operating system' they need to support. - Licensing model If you think about it a little bit, you will see that there is no significant difference in the licensing model between FreeBSD+ZFS and OpenSolaris+ZFS. It is not possible to be a little bit pregnant. Either one is pregnant, or one is not. Well, FreeBSD pretends it's possible, by shipping zfs and bearing BSD license at the same time. CDDL only covers the files which are already CDDL so they can't claim a pure BSD licensed release, but they probably have to include GPL stuff as well and no idea the status of removing whatever parts of that may be hanging around. Who cares about license as long as you have the right to do what *you* need with the source. /me - back to coding.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS dedup issue
Colin Raven wrote: Hey Cindy! Any idea of when we might see 129? (an approximation only). I ask the question because I'm pulling budget funds to build a filer, but it may not be in service until mid-January. Would it be reasonable to say that we might see 129 by then, or are we looking at summer...or even beyond? I don't see that there's a wrong answer: here necessarily, :) :) :) I'll go with what's out, but dedup is a big one and a feature that made me commit to this project. The unstable and experimental Sun builds typically lag about 2 weeks behind the cut of the hg tag. (Holidays and respins can derail that of course.) The stable releases I have no clue about. Depending on the level of adventure osunix in our next release may be interesting to you. Feel free to email me off list or say hi on irc #osunix irc.freenode.net Thanks ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Where is green-bytes dedup code?
Green-bytes is publicly selling their hardware and dedup solution today. From the feedback of others with testing from someone on our team we've found the quality of the initial putback to be buggy and not even close to production ready. (That's fine since nobody has stated it was production ready) It brings up the question though of where is the green-bytes code? They are obligated under the CDDL to release their changes *unless* they privately bought a license from Sun. It seems the conflicts from the lawsuit may or may not be resolved, but still.. Where's the code? ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] dedupe is in
Why didn't one of the developers from green-bytes do the commit? :P /sarcasm ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Dumb idea?
Miles Nordin wrote: pt == Peter Tribble peter.trib...@gmail.com writes: pt Does it make sense to fold this sort of intelligence into the pt filesystem, or is it really an application-level task? in general it seems all the time app writers want to access hundreds of thousands of files by unique id rather than filename, and the POSIX directory interface is not really up to the task. Dear zfs'ers It's possible to heavily influence the next POSIX/UNIX standard if you're interested to test or give feedback ping me off list. The Open Group does take feedback before they implement the next version of the standard and now is a good time to participate in that. Best, ./Christopher ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks fork
Eugen Leitl wrote: On Wed, Oct 28, 2009 at 01:40:12PM +0800, C. Bergström wrote: So use Nexenta? Got data you care about? Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :) So you're saying Nexenta have been known to drop bits on the floor, unprovoked? Inquiring minds... I would say this same thing if it was my company or my product.. regardless if it's Sun, Nexenta or any company.. verify the product so you can know the risks.. It's an open source project.. talk with the developers and those in the community who are using it for similar usage as you would.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs code and fishworks fork
Tim Cook wrote: PS: Not having enough engineers to support a growing and paying customer base is a *good* problem to have. The opposite is much, much worse. So use Nexenta? Got data you care about? Verify extensively before you jump to that ship.. :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] when will zfs have deduplication ?
tranceash wrote: Zfs will have deduplication in summer 2009 was the news ? But there seems to be no news when will it have this feature??? http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2009/09/faq-zfs-deduplication.html ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Petabytes on a budget - blog
Mario Goebbels wrote: As some Sun folks pointed out 1) No redundancy at the power or networking side 2) Getting 2TB drives in a x4540 would make the numbers closer 3) Performance isn't going to be that great with their design but...they might not need it. 4) Silicon Image chipsets. Their SATA controller chips used on a variety of mainboards are already well known for their unreliability and data corruption. I'd not want a whole bunch of SiI chips handle 67TB. 5) Where's the ECC ram? 6) Management interface? lustre + zfs... I'm already bouncing around ideas with others about an open Fishworks.. Maybe this is the boost we needed to justify sponsoring some of the development... Anyone interested? ./C -- CTO PathScale // Open source developer Follow me - http://www.twitter.com/CTOPathScale blog: http://www.codestrom.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] raidz
glidic anthony wrote: thanks but if it's experimental i prefer don't use. My server was use to an nfs share for an esxi so i prefer it was stable. But i thnik the best way it's to add an other hdd to make the install and make my raidz with this 3 disks Do you really consider OpenSolaris production ready? After grub loads the kernel image what bugs/regressions can it include? You may want to consider many things before discarding options or not realize fully what you're getting into. Good luck :) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Shrinking a zpool?
Martin wrote: You are the 2nd customer I've ever heard of to use shrink. This attitude seems to be a common theme in ZFS discussions: No enterprise uses shrink, only grow. Maybe. The enterprise I work for requires that every change be reversible and repeatable. Every change requires a backout plan and that plan better be fast and nondisruptive. Who are these enterprise admins who can honestly state that they have no requirement to reverse operations? Who runs a 24x7 storage system and will look you in the eye and state, The storage decisions (parity count, number of devices in a stripe, etc.) that I make today will be valid until the end of time and will NEVER need nondisruptive adjustment. Every storage decision I made in 1993 when we first installed RAID is still correct and has needed no changes despite changes in our business models. My experience is that this attitude about enterprise storage borders on insane. What's wrong with make a new pool.. safely copy the data. verify data and then delete the old pool.. Who in the enterprise just allocates a massive pool and then one day wants to shrink it... For home nas I could see this being useful.. I'm not aruging there isn't a use case, but in terms of where my vote for time/energy of the developers goes.. I'd have to concur there's more useful things out there. OTOH... once/if the block reallocation code is dropped (webrev?) the shrinking of a pool should be a lot easier. I don't mean to go off on a side rant, but afaik this code is written and should have been available. If we all pressured Green-bytes with an open letter it would maybe help.. The legal issues around this are what's holding it all up. @Sun people can't comment I'm sure, but this is what I speculate. ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] [storage-discuss] ZFS and deduplication
James Lever wrote: Nathan Hudson-Crim, On 04/08/2009, at 8:02 AM, Nathan Hudson-Crim wrote: Andre, I've seen this before. What you have to do is ask James each question 3 times and on the third time he will tell the truth. ;) fwiw.. I totally could see this in a joking context.. I won't tell anyone to lighten up since I'm the one typically being so serious, but I can imagine how stressful/unfun it must be @Sun these days. Next April I really hope someone has the nerve to float Larry's car as they did to Bill Joy.. [1] ./C [1] http://blog.taragana.com/index.php/archive/april-fool-pranks-in-sun-microsystems-over-the-years/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Letter to Greenbytes WAS: ZFS and deduplication
James C. McPherson wrote: On Sun, 02 Aug 2009 15:26:12 -0700 (PDT) Andre Lue no-re...@opensolaris.org wrote: Was de-duplication slated for snv_119? No. If not can anyone say which snv_xxx and in which form will we see it (synchronous, asynchronous both)? No, and no. noise If anyone from Greenbytes is reading this.. If you would have released the source and been community friendly about your dedup you could have had an Ubuntu cult-like following by now. By this I mean thousands of users and companies possibly using it. This may not have been what you originally envisioned, but there are business models which would have worked. Where are things now and how can that all be turned around? --- If you want dedup in OpenSolaris please vote in the poll I just setup. http://www.osunix.org/poll.jspa?poll=1001 If they realize there's a voice listening maybe they will listen back. Regards, ./Christopher /noise ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Fed up with ZFS causing data loss
Ross wrote: Supermicro AOC-SAT2-MV8, based on the Marvell chipset. I figured it was the best available at the time since it's using the same chipset as the x4500 Thumper servers. Our next machine will be using LSI controllers, but I'm still not entirely happy with the way ZFS handles timeout type errors. It seems that it handles drive reported read or write errors fine, and also handles checksum errors, but it's completely missed drive timeout errors as used by hardware raid controllers. Personally, I feel that when a pool usually responds to requests in the order of milliseconds, a timeout of even a tenth of a second is too long. Several minutes before a pool responds is just a joke. I'm still a big fan of ZFS, and modern hardware may have better error handling, but I can't help but feel this is a little short sighted. patches welcomed ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best ways to contribute WAS: Fed up with ZFS causing data loss
Rob Terhaar wrote: I'm sure this has been discussed in the past. But its very hard to understand, or even patch incredibly advanced software such as ZFS without a deep understanding of the internals. It will take quite a while before anyone can start understanding a file system which was developed behind closed doors for nearly a decade, and then released into opensource land via tarballs thrown over the wall. Only until recently the source has become more available to normal humans via projects such as indiana. Saying if you don't like it, patch it is an ignorant cop-out, and a troll response to people's problems with software. bs. I'm entirely *outside* of Sun and just tired of hearing whining and complaints about features not implemented. So the facts are a bit more clear in case you think I'm ignorant... #1 The source has been available and modified from those outside sun for I think 3 years?? #2 I fully agree the threshold to contribute is *significantly* high. (I'm working on a project to reduce this) #3 zfs unlike other things like the build system are extremely well documented. There are books on it, code to read and even instructors (Max Bruning) who can teach you about the internals. My project even organized a free online training for this This isn't zfs-haters or zfs-. Use it, love it or help out... documentation, patches to help lower the barrier of entry, irc support, donations, detailed and accurate feedback on needed features and lots of other things welcomed.. maybe there's a more productive way to get what you need implemented? I think what I'm really getting at is instead of dumping on this list all the problems that need to be fixed and the long drawn out stories.. File a bug report.. put the time in to explore the issue on your own.. I'd bet that if even 5% of the developers using zfs sent a patch of some nature we would avoid this whole thread. Call me a troll if you like.. I'm still going to lose my tact every once in a while when all I see is whiny/noisy threads for days.. I actually don't mean to single you out.. there just seems to be a lot of negativity lately.. ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] article on btrfs, comparison with zfs
James C. McPherson wrote: An introduction to btrfs, from somebody who used to work on ZFS: http://www.osnews.com/story/21920/A_Short_History_of_btrfs *very* interesting article.. Not sure why James didn't directly link to it, but courteous of Valerie Aurora (formerly Henson) http://lwn.net/Articles/342892/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Apple Removes Nearly All Reference To ZFS
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Only a lunatic would rely on Apple for a mission-critical server application. /OT It's funny, but I suspect you just called a large portion of the mac userbase lunatics.. While my reasons my differ I wouldn't disagree ;) ./C /OT ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] how to prevent that two clients open the same document
Tobs wrote: Hi There, We're running the latest OpenSolaris version with the build-in CIFS service. We experienced the problem that some users were opening the same Excel document at the same time. One was using MS Excel, the other one OpenOffice. This happend by accident. At the end, both weren't able to save it. What can I do to prevent that this happens again? Before, when the majority was using MS Excel, this problem never occured, instead the user got an error message, that informed her/him, that the document was already in use and it opened in read-only mode. Could this be an OpenOffice bug? ./C --- OSUNIX - Built from the best of OpenSolaris Technology http://www.osunix.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] eon or nexentacore or opensolaris
Anil Gulecha wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 1:19 PM, Bogdan M. Maryniuk bogdan.maryn...@gmail.com wrote: On Sat, May 23, 2009 at 4:56 AM, Joe S js.li...@gmail.com wrote: EON ZFS NAS http://eonstorage.blogspot.com/ No idea. NexentaCore Platform (v2.0 RC3) http://www.nexenta.org/os/NexentaCore Personally, I tried it few times. For now, it is still too much broken for me yet and looks scary. Previous version is much more stable but also older. Newer v2.0 looks exactly like bleeding edge Debian old times: each time you run apt-get upgrade you have to use shaman's tambourine dancing around the fireplace. I don't remember exactly, but some packages are just broken and can not find dependencies, installation crashes, pollutes your system and can not be restored nicely etc. However, when it will be not that broken anymore, it must be a great distribution with excellent package management and very convenient to use. Hi Bogdan, Which particular packages were these? RC3 is quite stable, and all server packages are solid. If you do face issues with a particular one, we'd appreciate a bug report. All information on this is helpful.. I've done some preliminary patch review on the core on-nexenta patches and I'd concur to put Nexenta pretty low on the trusted list for enterprise storage. This is in addition to the packaging problems you've pointed out. If the issues at hand were not enough when I sent an email to their dev list it was completely ignored. Marketing for Nexenta as Anil points out is strong, but like many other distributions outside Sun there's still a lot of work to go. I'm not sure EON's update delivery, but I believe it's just a minimal repackage of OpenSolaris release. This isn't the advocacy list so if you're interested in other alternatives feel free to email me off list. Cheers, ./Christopher -- OSUNIX - Built from the best of OpenSolaris Technology http://www.osunix.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Zfs and b114 version
Jorgen Lundman wrote: http://dlc.sun.com/osol/on/downloads/b114/ This URL makes me think that if I just sit down and figure out how to compile OpenSolaris, I can try b114 now^h^h^h eventually ? I am really eager to try out the new quota support.. has someone already tried compiling it perhaps? How complicated is compiling osol compared to, say, NetBSD/FreeBSD, Linux etc ? (IRIX and its quickstarting??) If you like I can ping you when we're done packaging onnv_115. I'm trying to resolve some tricky issues, but I would assume days from now. From there to build the source of any release is pmerge -1 onnv-gate or for a specific version pmerge -1 =onnv-gate-115. I could go into great detail how /we/ community developers face(d) many difficulties building onnv-gate. I doubt I would ever call it a straight forward process and I don't see it changing for *Solaris distro any time soon. imho the legacy scripts (bldenv + nightly) are very poorly documented for how opensolaris.sh affects Makefile.master* This may help give more concise instructions. If you find errata please ping me and I'll update it. http://www.codestrom.com/wandering/2008/12/onnvgate-quickstart-compile-guide.html Good luck, ./Christopher --- OSUNIX - Built from the best of OpenSolaris Technology http://www.osunix.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Anyone willing to sponsor an ARC case for grub2?
Hi.. I'm not exactly familiar with the ARC/sponsor process, but thought I'd toss this out since Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko mentioned the benefits of his port for grub2. I think by doing some sort of formal process we'll actually get feedback about the best way to move forward. There are assumptions and limitations with grub-0.97 that be possibly be addressed as well. Thanks ./Christopher --- OSUNIX - Open Source Uncertified NIX built from the best of OpenSolaris Technology http://osunix.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] preview zfs port to grub2 + raidz
Hi zfsers Just wanted to ping the list since one of the osunix/grub devs has been working hard at porting zfs to grub2. I don't think he's subscribed to zfs-discuss so quoting his original email and cc'ing him. Drop by #osunix on freenode if you're interested in the raidz/compressed rpool support http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-04/msg00512.html patch http://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/grub-devel/2009-04/txtPQO8HRPI4u.txt --- Hello, here is initial port of zfs from grub-solaris. It can only read file by its name. No ls or tab completition yet. Also identation and error handling in this patch is completely wrong. To choose the dataset set zfs variable. Here is an example of how I tested it: grub zfs=grubz/grubzfs grub cat (hd0)/hello hello, grub grub Such syntax is temporary and heavily restricts what you can do with different zfs filesystems (e.g. you can't cmp files on different filesystems) I propose the following syntax for the future: (one of vdevs:fs name) E.g. (hd0:grubzfs) Any other porposition? Regards Vladimir 'phcoder' Serbinenko -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs related google summer of code ideas - your vote
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: I don't know if anyone has noticed that the topic is google summer of code. There is only so much that a starving college student can accomplish from a dead-start in 1-1/2 months. The ZFS equivalent of eliminating world hunger is not among the tasks which may be reasonably accomplished, yet tasks at this level of effort is all that I have seen mentioned here. May I interject a bit.. I'm silently collecting this task list and even outside of gsoc may help try to arrange it from a community perspective. Of course this will be volunteer based unless /we/ get a sponsor or sun beats /us/ to it. So all the crazy ideas welcome.. ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] zfs related google summer of code ideas - your vote
For reasons which I don't care about Sun may not apply to be a gsoc organization this year. However, I'm not discouraged from trying to propose some exciting zfs related ideas. On/off list feel free to send your vote, let me know if you can mentor or if you know a company that could use it. Here's more or less what I've collected... 1) Excess ditto block removing + other green-bytes zfs+ features - *open source* (very hard.. can't be done in two months) 2) raidz boot support (planning phase and suitable student already found. could use more docs/info for proposal) 3) Additional zfs compression choices (good for archiving non-text files? 4) zfs cli interface to add safety checks (save your butt from deleting a pool worth more than your job) 5) Web or gui based admin interface 6) zfs defrag (was mentioned by someone working around petabytes of data..) 7) vdev evacuation as an upgrade path (which may depend or take advantage of zfs resize/shrink code) 8) zfs restore/repair tools (being worked on already?) 9) Timeslider ported to kde4.2 ( *cough* couldn't resist, but put this on the list) 10) Did I miss something.. #2 Currently planning and collecting as much information for the proposal as possible. Today all ufs + solaris grub2 issues were resolved and will likely be committed to upstream soon. There is a one liner fix in the solaris kernel also needed, but that can be binary hacked worst case. #5/9 This also may be possible for an outside project.. either web showcase or tighter desktop integration.. The rest may just be too difficult in a two month period, not something which can go upstream or not enough time to really plan well enough.. Even if this isn't done for gsoc it may still be possible for the community to pursue some of these.. To be a mentor will most likely require answering daily/weekly technical questions, ideally being on irc and having patience. On top of this I'll be available to help as much as technically possible, keep the student motivated and the projects on schedule. ./Christopher #ospkg irc.freenode.net - (Mostly OpenSolaris development rambling) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Details on raidz boot + zfs patents?
Mike Gerdts wrote: On Sat, Feb 28, 2009 at 4:53 AM, C. Bergström cbergst...@netsyncro.com wrote: The other question that I am less worried about is would this violate any patents.. I mean.. Sun added the initial zfs support to grub and this is essentially extending that, but I'm not aware of any patent provisions on that code or some royalty free statement about ZFS related patents from Sun.. (Frankly.. I look at Sun as /similar/ to Cononical in that I assume they only sue to protect themselves and not go after any good intention foss project..) See http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents. Sun has contributed zfs code to their grub fork, but it's not under the CDDL. So this doesn't apply. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Blake wrote: Care to share any of those in advance? It might be cool to see input from listees and generally get some wheels turning... raidz boot support in grub 2 is pretty high on my list to be honest.. Which brings up another question of where is the raidz stuff mostly? usr/src/uts/common/fs/zfs/vdev_raidz.c ? Any high level summary, docs or blog entries of what the process would look like for a raidz boot support is also appreciated. Cheers, ./Christopher ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Blake wrote: Gnome GUI for desktop ZFS administration On Fri, Feb 27, 2009 at 9:13 PM, Blake blake.ir...@gmail.com wrote: zfs send is great for moving a filesystem with lots of tiny files, since it just handles the blocks :) I'd like to see: pool-shrinking (and an option to shrink disk A when i want disk B to become a mirror, but A is a few blocks bigger) This may be interesting... I'm not sure how often you need to shrink a pool though? Could this be classified more as a Home or SME level feature? install to mirror from the liveCD gui I'm not working on OpenSolaris at all, but for when my projects installer is more ready /we/ can certainly do this.. zfs recovery tools (sometimes bad things happen) Agreed.. part of what I think keeps zfs so stable though is the complete lack of dependence on any recovery tools.. It forces customers to bring up the issue instead of dirty hack and nobody knows. automated installgrub when mirroring an rpool This goes back to an installer option? ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Blake wrote: Gnome GUI for desktop ZFS administration With the libzfs java bindings I am plotting a web based interface.. I'm not sure if that would meet this gnome requirement though.. Knowing specifically what you'd want to do in that interface would be good.. I planned to compare it to fishworks and the nexenta appliance as a base.. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] GSoC 09 zfs ideas?
Hi everyone. I've got a couple ideas for good zfs GSoC projects, but wanted to stir some interest. Anyone interested to help mentor? The deadline is around the corner so if planning hasn't happened yet it should start soon. If there is interest who would the org administrator be? Thanks ./Christopher ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
Chris Ridd wrote: On 26 Nov 2008, at 13:12, dick hoogendijk wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:51:04 + Chris Ridd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm replacing the disk with my rpool with a mirrored pool, and wondering how best to do that. The disk I'm replacing is partitioned with root on s0, swap on s1 and boot on s8, which is what the original 2008.05 installer created for me. Are you sure about this? OS2008-05 uses the whole disk as a ZFS and within that rpool creates the seperate filesystems (swap/dump,..) Yep. I've never seen a ZFS system on seperate slices. Slices are things from the past ;-) Maybe this is just a hangover from my original 2008.05 install? to mirror the root. The -f is to stop zpool whining about s0 overlapping s2. If I use a disk for a root pool I create just one slice on it (s0). Nothing else. This is needed because booting of EFI labeled disks is not spuurted (yet). Nod, I had to use format -e to force an SMI label. But what do I do with that swap slice? Should I ditch it and create an rpool/swap area? Do I still need a boot slice? ALL parts are created within the one rpool. Hm, so it might be better to do a new install onto the new disk with whatever slices the installer wants to set up, and then migrate the filesystems across from the old rpool. So where does installgrub put the boot bits? To clear up some confusion.. This is from a default indiana install format -e verify.. Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks 0 rootwm 262 - 19453 147.02GB(19192/0/0) 308319480 1 swapwu 1 - 2612.00GB(261/0/0) 4192965 So clearly root is on 0 and swap is on 1.. You *can not* install zfs to a whole disk and expect it to boot.. As for installing grub so it's correct.. Choice 1) Best choice imho /zfsroot/boot/solaris/bin/update_grub -R /zfsroot Choice 2) (risky) installgrub /boot/grub/stage1 /boot/grub/stage2 /dev/rdsk/c4t0d0s0 If you're doing any sort of install by hand I have extensive notes on this I'm willing to share if you pm me. There's a number of bugs you can easily hit/avoid as well. So be careful with have the root slice start at 1 for example. Good luck ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
Darren J Moffat wrote: dick hoogendijk wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 12:51:04 + Chris Ridd [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I'm replacing the disk with my rpool with a mirrored pool, and wondering how best to do that. The disk I'm replacing is partitioned with root on s0, swap on s1 and boot on s8, which is what the original 2008.05 installer created for me. Are you sure about this? OS2008-05 uses the whole disk as a ZFS and within that rpool creates the seperate filesystems (swap/dump,..) The original builds of OpenSolaris 2008.05 did NOT use the whole disk. They created a separate swap slice in the Solaris VTOC in side the SOLARIS2 fdisk partition and put the pool on the rest. That swap slice was configured as swap and dump. I've never seen a ZFS system on seperate slices. Slices are things from the past ;-) Unfortunately not the case for ZFS pools that are to be booted from. This is because we can't boot from an EFI labelled disk. Well maybe MacOS X hardware could but general x86 systems are still legacy BIOS and not EFI loaders. Even the current 2008.11 development builds still use a Solaris VTOC it is just that they make the slice the full size of the SOLARIS2 fdisk partition so it looks like it is using the whole disk. to mirror the root. The -f is to stop zpool whining about s0 overlapping s2. If I use a disk for a root pool I create just one slice on it (s0). Nothing else. This is needed because booting of EFI labeled disks is not spuurted (yet). That is what the current 2008.11 dev builds do. Ok. here's a trick question.. So to the best of my understanding zfs turns off write caching if it doesn't own the whole disk.. So what if s0 *is* the whole disk? Is write cache supposed to be turned on or off? (Haven't check this locally) Also is it more efficient/better performing to give swap a 2nd slice on the inner part of the disk or not care and just toss it on top of zfs? ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Best practice for swap and root pool
dick hoogendijk wrote: On Wed, 26 Nov 2008 15:29:50 +0100 C. Bergström [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: To clear up some confusion.. This is from a default indiana install format -e verify.. Part TagFlag Cylinders SizeBlocks 0 rootwm 262 - 19453 147.02GB(19192/0/0) 308319480 1 swapwu 1 - 2612.00GB (261/0/0) 4192965 So clearly root is on 0 and swap is on 1.. You *can not* install zfs to a whole disk and expect it to boot.. How can you say this? SXCE and S10U6 are both installed on a disk with only a S0 ZFS takes care of the swap space! I do not only expect it to boot; I see it boot whenever I want to ;-) I was directly responding to I've never seen a ZFS system on seperate slices. Slices are things from the past ;-) slice(s) are still around whether it takes up the whole disk or not.. Also the work-around to the bug which requires -f can be worked around by changing swap to sector 1 afaik. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Smashing Baby a fake???
Will Murnane wrote: On Mon, Nov 24, 2008 at 10:40, Scara Maccai [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Still don't understand why even the one on http://www.opensolaris.com/, ZFS – A Smashing Hit, doesn't show the app running in the moment the HD is smashed... weird... Sorry this is OT, but is it just me or does is only seem proper to have Gallagher do this? ;) ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] External storage recovery?
I had to hard power reset the laptop... Now I can't import my pool.. zpool status -x bucket UNAVAIL 0 0 0 insufficient replicas c6t0d0UNAVAIL 0 0 0 cannot open cfgadm usb8/4 usb-storage connectedconfigured ok --- I see a ton of these in dmesg Oct 13 17:22:08 fuzzy scsi: [ID 107833 kern.warning] WARNING: /[EMAIL PROTECTED],0/pci1028,[EMAIL PROTECTED],7/[EMAIL PROTECTED]/[EMAIL PROTECTED],0 (sd2): Oct 13 17:22:08 fuzzy drive offline --- What's the best way to proceed? (I don't have time to kmdb the issue right now, but hopefully that won't be necessary) Thanks ./Christopher ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes
Joerg Schilling wrote: Tim [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: ZFS is licensed under the CDDL, and as far as I know does not require derivative works to be open source. It's truly free like the BSD license in that companies can take CDDL code, modify it, and keep the content closed. They are not forced to share their code. That's why there are closed patches that go into mainline Solaris, but are not part of OpenSolaris. The CDDL requires to make modifications public. While you may not like it, this isn't the GPL. The GPL is more free than many people may believe now ;-) The GPL is unfortunately missunderstood by most people. The GPL allows you to link GPLd projects against other code of _any_ other license that does not forbid you some basic things. This is because the GPL ends at the work limit. The binary in this case is just a container for more than one work and the license of the binary is the aggregation of the requirements of the licenses in use by the sources. The influence of the CDDL ends at file level. All changes are covered by the copyleft from the CDDL. My apologies to Matt as I didn't expect so much noise over the issue, but mostly for things to be clarified more clearly. If anything positive can still come from this let us know. ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes
Hi all In another thread a short while ago.. A cool little movie with some gumballs was all we got to learn about green-bytes. The product launched and maybe some of the people that follow this list have had a chance to take a look at the code/product more closely? Wstuart asked how they were going to handle section 3.1 of the CDDL, but nobody from green-bytes even made an effort to clarify this. I called since I'm consulting with companies who are potential customers, but are any of developers even subscribed to this list? After a call and exchanging a couple emails I'm left with the impression the source will *not* be released publicly or to customers. I'm not the copyright holder, a legal expert, or even a customer, but can someone from Sun or green-bytes make a comment. I apologize for being a bit off topic, but is this really acceptable to the community/Sun in general? Maybe the companies using Solaris and NetApp don't care about source code, but then the whole point of opening Solaris is just reduced to marketing hype. In the defense of green-bytes.. I think they've truly spent some time developing an interesting product and want to protect their ideas and investment. I said this on the phone, but in my very humble opinion nobody is going to steal their patches. In a way I'm curious what others think before a good company gets a lot of bad PR over an honest and small oversight. Cheers, Christopher Bergström +1.206.279.5000 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Comments on green-bytes
Matt Aitkenhead wrote: I see that you have wasted no time. I'm still determining if you have a sincere interest in working with us or alternatively have an axe to grind. The latter is shining through. Regards, Matt Hi Matt, I'd like to make our correspondence in public if you don't mind so my intention isn't mistaken. My point wasn't at all to grind an axe. 1) That's no way to encourage a company which is already scared of open source to even think about releasing patches. (Sun's marketing isn't stupid.. they did this because it's good for them) 2) I am sincerely interested in your product (as others seem to be as well) Code review, increased testing and viral marketing are all typically good things. Anyway, hope this clears things up. Cheers, ./C ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] Greenbytes/Cypress
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: Today while reading EE Times I read an article about a startup company named Greenbytes which will be offering a system called Cypress which supports deduplication and arrangement of data to minimize power consumption. It seems that deduplication is at the file level. The product is initially based on Sun hardware (Sunfire 4540) and uses OpenSolaris and a modified version of ZFS. I am surprised to first hear about this in EE Times rather than on this list. maybe you didn't grok it. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
