Post by Paul KrausI suspect that the amount of changes / discussion is no less
for ZFS than for any new filesystem, just that due to the open source
nature of it the discussions are in public view. The fact that the
issues *are* being discussed is a huge advantage in my mind. At least
we *know* that the issue are being recognized. I don't know how many
times I have filed bug reports on various aspects of an OS and never
get a good response that the issue has been recognized as such.
I've always argued about Sun and their sheer amount of patches for any
software they seem to release. It's a good/bad situation. On the
bright side they are pro active in creating and releasing patches,
even their IDR process is a good idea and very pro active of them. On
the contrary you could look at it as if their software always ends up
needing more and more patches no matter how many patches you end up
applying, you're almost always out of date and vulnerable to
potentially critical known/unknown issues.
AIX doesn't seem to have lots of patches out there (nowhere as many as
Solaris). One could argue that the software it self does not need to
be patched after it's released. Then again you could argue vendor's
not too proactive in chasing up patches and the userbase doesn't find
many bugs to begin with...
I guess both have to do with company's support strategy (in one way or another).
Post by Paul KrausVxFS did not have the performance we needed without lots of
tuning, while ZFS did fine right out of the box. We had moved away
from VxVM/VxFS years ago due to SLVM maturing and giving us the
features we really needed, SLVM was easier to manage, and OS upgrades
are *much* simpler with SLVM than with VxVM/VxFS. There was no real
justification for the cost and more difficult management of VxVM/VxFS.
For some background, I have been using both VxVM/VxFS and
DiskSuite / SLVM since about 1996.
VxSF is not a typo it seems to be. I was referring to Veritas Storage
Foundation, not only VxFS. ZFS isn't only a filesystem hence should
not be compared to only VxFS.
We avoid using VxSF for OS volumes, use SVM for those instead because
as you say it's easier and cleaner to maintain. VxSF overcomplicates
simple environments, however it makes complex environments easier to
manage. I'd not want to manage 100s of multipathed LUNs via SVM on a
clustered system when VxSF is an option.
Post by Paul KrausI expect that UFS was not changing much because it had spent
so many years changing already ;-) Seriously, I was seeing serious
changes in SLVM/UFS up until about a year or two ago. I even ran into
one of the issues created by fixing another issue with SLVM about a
year ago. We are using ZFS in a couple 'production' roles, only one of
which is critical, and we picked ZFS because no other FS we tested
scaled the way we needed it to.
Again ZFS and VxSF all fit differing purposes. I see ZFS trying to
compete with VxSF, but not the other way around (at least not in
techincal aspects).
--
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /¯¯¯¯