Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 25, 2011 7:15 AM, "Garrett D'Amore" wrote: > > You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards that do not meet in public. [...] True. > [...] In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies that *do* hold open meetings. I can: the IETF, for example. All business of the IETF is transacted or confirmed on open participation mailing lists, and IETF meetings are known as NOTE WELL meetings because of the notice given at their opening regarding the fact that meeting is public and resulting considerations regarding, e.g., trade secrets. Mind you, there are many more standards setting organizations that don't have open participation, such as OASIS, ISO, and so on. I don't begrudge you starting closed, our even staying closed, though I would prefer that at least the output of any ZFS standards org be open. Also, I would recommend that you eventually consider creating a new open participation list for non-members (separate from any members-only list). Nico -- ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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" wrote: > 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 appreciative of > that since they brought you the Internet and enabled us to send this email. > Clearly it works. > > Bob > -- > Bob Friesenhahn > bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ > GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 are represented in the ZFS Working Group. Does that include users? If so by whom? Or is that another secret? This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and organizations. Except for the secrecy. Please, by all means hold private meetings, but do follow the ISO programming language standards committee model and publish minutes and other material. Encourage feedback on open mail lists and engage with the user community. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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, but all their materials are public and they invite discussion. Why can't ZFS follow this model? What's (apparently because we don't know) happening now to something born out of open source is appalling. The only beneficiaries from all this secrecy are the nay-slayers. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 and isolation. 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 :-) I totally agree. In fact a large fraction of efforts at the IETF fail, and failure can be a good thing. The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code are represented in the ZFS Working Group. This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and organizations. The error in the statement above is that most key stakeholders are not represented. I consider myself to be a key stakeholder in that I have entrusted my precious data to zfs. Stakeholder is not necessarily the same as a famous zfs software developer or someone who specifically invests money in a company doing zfs development. We are stakeholders too! Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 >> members. Committee membership is not open to anyone who wants to be on >> the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the >> committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness. > > Not necessarily madness. As I mentioned to Garrett, the IETF > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF) holds totally open meetings and mailing > lists. Anyone who shows up can vote on whatever is discussed and all votes > count as equal. There is no need to pay for attendance, no need to apply for > acceptance, no need to show an ID at the door, and anyone can just walk in, > yet actions and demonstrated implementations speak louder than any words. > Anyone can write an RFC as long as it meets certain standards. However, the > IETF also has a "working code" requirement and demands several independent > interoperable implementations before some new interface can be accepted for > the standards track. > > 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 and isolation. 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 :-) The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code are represented in the ZFS Working Group. This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and organizations. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 these RFC's I'll make sure to forward you a copy. RFC means "Request For Comment". Unless an RFC has survived the grueling standards-track process, it is no more than a documented idea put out for public comment. Indeed, the majority of RFCs fail this process, and many do not even try to enter it but simply exist to document an idea or a vendor's existing protocol. I am impressed if Microsoft still produces new ideas worthy of putting in a document. This sort of open RFC process would be good for zfs because it provides ample paths to utter failure while winnowing out the good ideas which achieve rough consensus and interoperability. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 these RFC's I'll > make sure to forward you a copy. > > The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the > specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to > include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's > existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but > that it was a change driven by ONE vendor. Im Y2001, Microsoft first tried to standardize to permit chars to be 16 bit also, in order to make their UCS-2 based system POSIX compliant. We have been able to prevent this from happening. A few weeks later, they tried to make ':' an illegal character in filenames in order to make "foo:bar" an extended attribute file "bar" located in file "foo". We have been able to prevent this too. The people who actively work in a standard commitee decide with their majority and if your example with Microsoft has been something that was not acceptable by others, it did not happen. BTW: I am not an OpenGroup member and I did never pay anything. The POSIX standard (since 2001) nevertheless contains proposals from me and my name is listed in the standard as contributor/reviewer..all meetings are open (phone and IRC) and there is an open mailing list. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus wrote: > On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn > 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 and isolation. > >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 these RFC's I'll > make sure to forward you a copy. > >The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the > specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to > include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's > existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but > that it was a change driven by ONE vendor. > > > Except it wasn't just Microsoft at all. There were three vendors on the original RFC, and one of the authors was Paul Vixie... the author of BIND. http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt You should probably do a bit of research before throwing out claims like that to try to shoot someone down. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
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 and isolation.
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 these RFC's I'll
make sure to forward you a copy.
The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
include underscore "_". This was specifically to support Microsoft's
existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 who wants to be on the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness. Not necessarily madness. As I mentioned to Garrett, the IETF (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF) holds totally open meetings and mailing lists. Anyone who shows up can vote on whatever is discussed and all votes count as equal. There is no need to pay for attendance, no need to apply for acceptance, no need to show an ID at the door, and anyone can just walk in, yet actions and demonstrated implementations speak louder than any words. Anyone can write an RFC as long as it meets certain standards. However, the IETF also has a "working code" requirement and demands several independent interoperable implementations before some new interface can be accepted for the standards track. 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 and isolation. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme wrote: > 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 what reason is Oracle ZFS being declared the > standard or reference? Because "they write the first so-many lines" or > because they make the biggest sales on it (kinda hard to sell licenses > to an open source product)? > Because they OWN the code, and the patents to protect the code. --Tim ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 appreciative of that since they brought you the Internet and enabled us to send this email. Clearly it works. Bob -- Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 what reason is Oracle ZFS being declared the standard or reference? Because "they write the first so-many lines" or because they make the biggest sales on it (kinda hard to sell licenses to an open source product)? -- No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 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.
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 who wants to be on
the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the
committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness.
I think it would help the 'ZFS Standards Committee' if it's
existence, membership, goals, and decisions were more public. I am not
suggesting a high level of detail. For example, membership could be
identified as: Members include representatives from Oracle and
Nexenta, send an email to the cont...@zfs-standard.org to contact a
committee member.
Knowing that something is happening and that the right players are
at the table is important to having trust in the process and results.
--
{1-2-3-4-5-6-7-}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
"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. You probybly don't know POSIX. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 ZFS themself into a secret circle. But as i wrote a long time ago, a lot of things were done because of business considerations, not because of "open source is great". Am 25.05.2011 14:15, schrieb Garrett D'Amore: 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" wrote: "Garrett D'Amore" 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 implementation should be starting on it. Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience in ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features. I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist. Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM, 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. > 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] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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" wrote: > "Garrett D'Amore" 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 implementation should be starting on it. >> Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience >> in ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features. > > I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist. > > Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public. > > Jörg > > -- > EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin > j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) > joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: > http://schily.blogspot.com/ > URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
"Garrett D'Amore" 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 implementation should be starting on it. > Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience > in ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features. I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist. Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
>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 very happy if importing worked when both systems >supported the same featureset. You can use "zpool create" to set a specific version; this should allow you to create a pool usable in a number of different systems. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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" 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 zpools > between Nexenta and OpenIndiana? > > -- > No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, > dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy > without the benevolence of the author. > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 zpools between Nexenta and OpenIndiana Given the new "versioning" governing board, I think that's highly likely. 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 very happy if importing worked when both systems supported the same featureset. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen, dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy without the benevolence of the author. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Peter Jeremy wrote: > On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High 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 incompatible. There are verious media formats out, but I know of only one format that defines an enhencement method that really allows enhancements from various vendors without problems and without the need for a common format commitee: tar. The current enhanced POSIX tar format defines an enhancement method proposed by Sun that works by defining a framework to introduce new features that all have names with company prefixes. What Sun defines for ZFS enhancements on the other side is bases on ideas that are at least 30 years old and that try to prevent other entities from introducing features, so it is not useful in a OSS world. > 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 > the other OSS working groups it was a member of, having Oracle onboard > might be a disadvantage). I recently made a proposal for a way to handle vendor specific enhancements but nobody did contact me. Are you sure that such a group exists? Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 version of ZFS better may be seen by Oracle as contradictory to them making money from it. That said, what is already open source cannot be un-open sourced, as others have said... cheers Andy. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy > 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 > > Richard would probably know for certain. Yes, Oracle has representation on the ZFS working group. > There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an > Oracle ZFS. That break occurred in August 2010. > Hopefully neither side will actively try to break > compatibility. Yes! A solution to the versioning issue appears to have reached consensus. I observe that the current Solaris 10/11 versioning incompatibility issue doesn't seem to be causing rioting in the streets :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy 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 Richard would probably know for certain. There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an Oracle ZFS. Hopefully neither side will actively try to break compatibility. -B -- Brandon High : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High 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 incompatible. 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 the other OSS working groups it was a member of, having Oracle onboard might be a disadvantage). -- Peter Jeremy ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 wrote: > On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote: >> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling >> 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. >> > That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible. > > Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of ZFS > are inevitable. > > -- > Ian. > > ___ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
Hi Brandon, Thanks for the details. Sounds to me like Nexenta is in the lead! Kind regards, Hans Rattink 2011/5/24 Richard Elling > On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote: > > > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling > > 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. > > It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We > are moving forward > with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered > system of the past. > > Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in > Solaris 10 :-) > -- richard > > ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote: On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling 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. That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible. Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of ZFS are inevitable. -- Ian. ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote: > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling > 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. It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We are moving forward with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered system of the past. Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in Solaris 10 :-) -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling 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 : bh...@freaks.com ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 NetApp > might come up with as the details aren't published? > > Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Simply means that if you want ZFS from Oracle, you have to pay money. > Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, > NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their > implementation of it? There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire. Diversity and innovation is a good thing. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 in a Boston NexentaStor solution. <>___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
> 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 ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 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 published? Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of it? Regards, Hans <>___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 published? Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of it? Regards, Hans -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 Nexenta's ZFS is open and can not be closed. There is no threat to Nexenta from the ZFS code itself; the license that it was made available under explicitly has Oracle allow use for any patents *Oracle* might have. However, since the terms of the NetApp/Oracle suit aren't available publicly, and I seriously doubt that NetApp gave up its patent claims, it could still be feasible for NetApp to sue Nexenta or whomever for alleged violations of *NetApp's* patents in the ZFS code. That is, ZFS has no copyright infringement issues for 3rd parties. It has no patent issues from Oracle. It *could* have patent issues from NetApp. The possible impact of that is beyond my knowledge. IANAL. Nor do I speak for Oracle in any manner, official or unofficial. -- Erik Trimble Java System Support Mailstop: usca22-123 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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 NAS based upon Nexenta. NexentaStor is based upon the ZFS filesystem and sounds (for that reason) very promising. Now i wonder what the threats are to this and if Oracle is one of them, when reading for example in a Gartner report: "Gartner cautions about the uncertain nature of future developments of the open-source ZFS code, as Oracle intends to focus on monetizing ZFS." * And on the Register i read: "One outcome is that Oracle agrees to license the relevant patents pertaining to ZFS from NetApp. This would then open the way for Coraid and other ZFS-using storage suppliers to have to license them as well, significantly upsetting their business models unless the license fees are set low." ** I would like to know what grip Oracle (or perhaps NetApp) has upon ZFS. Are parts of the code owned by Oracle? Can they put claims on parts of ZFS? Regards, Hans. * http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/hitachi/vol3/article2/article2.html?WT.ac=us_hp_sp1r21&_p=v ** http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/netapp_coraid/ -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta
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. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
