Julian Regel <jrmailgate-zfsdisc...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >> While I am sure that star is technically a fine utility, the problem is
> >> that it is effectively an unsupported product.
>
> >From this viewpoint, you may call most of Solaris "unsupported".
>
> From the perspective of the business, the contract with Sun provides that
> support.
>From a perspective of reality, such a contract will not help.
> >Do you really believe that Sun will help such a customer?
> >There are many bugs in Solaris (I remember e.g. some showstopper
> >bugs in the multimedia area) that are not fixed although they are known
> >since a very long time (more than a year).
> >There is a bug in ACL handling in Sun's tar (reported by me in 2004 or even
> >before) that is not fixed. As a result in many cases ACLs are not restored.
>
> If Sun don't fix a critical bug that is affecting the availability of
> server that is under support, then it becomes a problem for the legal
> department. In the ACL example, it's possible the effected users didn't have
> a support contract.
What you seem to point out is that in case of a problem for a customer with a
contract, the legal department gets involved. Unfortunately, laywers do not fix
bugs.....
> >Note that bugs in star are fixed much faster and looking back at the 28 years
> >of history with star, I know of not a single bug that took more than 3 months
> >to get a fix. Typically, bugs are fixed withing less than a week - many bugs
> >even within a few hours. This is a support quality that Sun does not offer.
>
> Possibly, but there is no guarantee that it will be fixed, no-one to call
> when there is a problem, no-one to escalate the problem to if it is ignored,
> and no company to sue if it all goes wrong.
Escalating a problem does not fix it.
> >So please explain us where you see a problem with star......
>
> Hopefully my above comments explain sufficiently. It's not a technical issue
> with star, it's a business issue. The rules there are very different and not
> based on merit (this is also why many companies prefer running their mission
> critical apps on Red Hat Enterprise Linux instead of CentOS, even though
> technically they are almost identical).
Now we are back to reality.
A person that is interested in a solution will usually check what happened
in similar cases before. If you compare star with Sun supplied tools with
this background, Sun cannot outperform star.
"Red Hat Enterprise Linux" may offer something you cannot get with CentOS.
But I don't see that Sun can offer something you don't get with star.
Let me make another reality check:
Many people use GNU tar for backup purposes, but my first automated test case
with incremental backups using GNU tar did fail so miserably that I was unable
to use GNU tar as a test reference at all.
On the other side, I am doing incremental backup _and_ restore tests with
gigabytes of real delta data on a dayly base since 2004 and I did hot see any
problem since April 2005.
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
