Hi Bob, Tim, Jeff, you are all my friends, and you all know what you are talking about. As a friend, and trusting your personal integrity, I ask you, please, don't get mad, enjoy the open discussion.
(ok, ok, O(N) is revolutionary in tech thinking, just not revolutionary in end customer value. And safety features are important in risk management for enterprises.) I have friends at NetApp, and there are people there that I don't give a damn. I am an enterprise architect, I don't care about the little environments that can be fulfilled most effectively by any one operating enviornment applications. They are not enterprises and are risky in that business model in economy downturns. In that spirit, and looking at the NetApp virtual server support architecture, I would say -- as much as the ONTAP/WAFL thing (even with GX integration) is elegant, it would make more sense to utilize the file system capabilities with kernal integration to hypervisors, in virtual server deployments, instead of promoting a storage-device-based file system and data management solution (more proprietary at the solution level). So, in my position, NetApp PiT is not as good as ZFS PiT, because it is too far from the hypervisor. You can support me or attack me with more technical details (if you know NetApp is developing an API for all server hypervisors, I don't). And don't worry, I have the biggest eagle, but so far, no one has been able to hurt that. ;-) Best, z ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us> To: "Tim" <t...@tcsac.net> Cc: <zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org> Sent: Saturday, December 13, 2008 11:03 AM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Split responsibility for data with ZFS > On Sat, 13 Dec 2008, Tim wrote: >> >> Seriously? Do you know anything about the NetApp platform? I'm hoping >> this >> is a genuine question... > > I believe that esteemed Sun engineers like Jeff are quite familiar > with the NetApp platform. Besides NetApp being one of the primary > storage competitors, it is a virtual minefield out there and one must > take great care not to step on other company's patents. > >> Off the top of my head nearly all of them. Some of them have artificial >> limitations because they learned the hard way that if you give customers >> enough rope they'll hang themselves. For instance "unlimited snapshots". >> Do I even need to begin to tell you what a horrible, HORRIBLE idea that >> is? >> "Why can't I get my space back?" Oh, just do a snapshot list and figure >> out >> which one is still holding the data. What? Your console locks up for 8 >> hours when you try to list out the snapshots? Huh... that's weird. > > I suggest that you retire to the safety of the rubber room while the > rest of us enjoy these zfs features. By the same measures, you would > advocate that people should never be allowed to go outside due to the > wide open spaces. Perhaps people will wander outside their homes and > forget how to make it back. Or perhaps there will be gravity failure > and some of the people outside will be lost in space. > > There is some activity off the starboard bow, perhaps you should check > it out ... > > 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 _______________________________________________ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
