--
Mark Warner
MEPIS Linux
Registered Linux User #415318
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
Remember, the list default is to auto-reply to the list, so you'll have
to address the e-mail to me specifically. ;-)
--
Mark Krenz
Bloomington Linux Users Group
http://www.bloomingtonlinux.org/
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
ZFS does have a lot of features, it is true.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
I suspect that a number of the "attention to fine detail" aspects of it
may well be integrated deeply within the OS itself -- and not inherant
aspects of ZFS.
The whole "incompatible with the GPL as used in the Linux kernel" thing
makes it less interesting to me.
It's like saying BeOS has really great (that is low) audio latency.
It does me no good, as I'm not going to actually use BeOS. I may as
well wait for a free software guy to adapt features in to a system I
can actually use. (Unless, say, they can't do that because they're all
patented...)
I have more interest in the Hurd than I do in OpenSolaris. Jumping
between Linux distributions is minor work compared to going between
entirely different operating systems. (If I get the Debian distribution
of the Hurd the only big thing different would be the kernel.)
Side note: Even though the Hurd isn't done yet, the upcoming release of
Debian (codename: Squeeze) will include kFreeBSD as a core supported
architecture. (For the folks unaware, it'll be Debian but with the
FreeBSD kernel instead of the Linux kernel.)
Solaris, in particular, is like an odd cousin with funny coloured hair
and a weird accent when compared to Linux. They grew up in totally
different places, and different underlying decisions were made so long
ago that neither family even remembers that it was once a decision.
Cheers,
Steven Black
On Thu, Nov 19, 2009 at 09:06:57PM -0500, Joe Auty wrote:
> I've been testing and evaluating ZFS over the last several days, and
> I've been thoroughly impressed. ZFS is one of those products where there
> is so much attention to little details that it is literally a joy to
> use. This is Sun's masterpiece!
>
> I'm only testing ZFS in an OpenSolaris VM for now so I can't report
> really back on performance and resource consumption, but from what I can
> gather there are a lot of people who consider ZFS to be highly stable,
> some companies and universities using it on production servers, and as
> you know it is the default file system in OpenSolaris. That being said,
> here is why I've been so impressed with it...
>
> ZFS seems to sort of combine LVM and hardware RAID into a single
> product. It even includes a mini-NFS and iSCSI client for very easy file
> system sharing, it will automount all of your file sytems at boot so
> that you don't have to much around with the Solaris equivalent to fstab,
> and the interface is very thoughtful and easy-to-use with so many little
> thoughtful features and little touches that make life easy. In fact, it
> is so straight forward that it would be very easy to wrap a
> configuration GUI around, I think, and hence the subject of this message...
>
> One of the biggest problems with consumer PCs are the fact that the
> machine is dependent on a single disk which are prone to going bad.
> Given the availability of high capacity 2.5" SATA disks and Flash
> increasing in capacity and reducing in size constantly, isn't it only a
> matter of time before it makes sense to ship computers (even laptops)
> with multiple disks? It is so incredibly easy to setup a mirror of your
> filesystem in ZFS, and with a hot spare in your storage pool you can
> automatically set it up to failover and notify you. Perhaps someday
> storage in a PC will be as simple as it is with a digital camera or
> something? I don't see how this sort of thing would be that far off...
>
> The other incredibly nice feature of ZFS that is a huge net gain for
> almost all of us is its snapshot ability. Snapshots are block level,
> meaning that whenever a file is changed you don't need to keep a
> complete copy of that file, a mess of hard links and all of that sort of
> stuff you'd find in a solution such as Apple's Time Machine or many of
> the backup snapshot solutions we concoct with shell scripts. Taking
> snapshots is *incredibly fast*, incredibly easy to manage, and you can
> browse these snapshots without having to create new inodes and hard
> links - these are, as I understand it, simply very low level references
> to files, but not files themselves. Still, you can copy individual files
> from snapshots as you would copy any file, or restore an entire file
> system from a snapshot. This is so easy to do and takes up so little
> disk space that not only is this a great way to do backups, but it is
> also a great way to create yourself an "oh shit" safety net should you
> want to back out of an update that has gone bad, etc.
>
> I could go on about the many features and nice aspects to using ZFS,
> features like self healing, zpool iostat, etc. It's pretty cool stuff,
> but I'll leave my gushing for another time. Like I said, I'm just
> speaking to the features here...
>
> Still, I wanted to see what you guys thought about the future of modern
> file systems such as ZFS? I realize that it will be a long time before
> BTRFS is ready, perhaps even longer for this sort of thing to make its
> way to OS X and/or Windows, but now that the bar as been set I'm sure it
> is only a matter of time before the copycats emerge. However things end
> up, who owns what, licenses, product names, etc. This seems like a very
> big deal to me. It is definitely changing the way I think of my data,
> and I'm surprised how easy it is to setup a storage appliance like the
> one I'm testing.
>
> OpenSolaris is actually pretty nice. There are a few proprietary Sun
> things included, but a lot of it seems pretty familiar to me - bash,
> Gnome, etc. I would say that if you are looking for a storage solution
> that OpenSolaris shouldn't really be a deterrent. FreeBSD 8 is in RC3,
> and it will include full ZFS support (previous versions include partial
> support), so this is another option.
>
> Any other ZFS users/enthusiasts here?
>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Joe Auty
> NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
> http://www.netmusician.org
> joe@netmusician.org
> _______________________________________________
> BLUG mailing list
> BLUG@linuxfan.com
> http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
I'm only testing ZFS in an OpenSolaris VM for now so I can't report
really back on performance and resource consumption, but from what I can
gather there are a lot of people who consider ZFS to be highly stable,
some companies and universities using it on production servers, and as
you know it is the default file system in OpenSolaris. That being said,
here is why I've been so impressed with it...
ZFS seems to sort of combine LVM and hardware RAID into a single
product. It even includes a mini-NFS and iSCSI client for very easy file
system sharing, it will automount all of your file sytems at boot so
that you don't have to much around with the Solaris equivalent to fstab,
and the interface is very thoughtful and easy-to-use with so many little
thoughtful features and little touches that make life easy. In fact, it
is so straight forward that it would be very easy to wrap a
configuration GUI around, I think, and hence the subject of this message...
One of the biggest problems with consumer PCs are the fact that the
machine is dependent on a single disk which are prone to going bad.
Given the availability of high capacity 2.5" SATA disks and Flash
increasing in capacity and reducing in size constantly, isn't it only a
matter of time before it makes sense to ship computers (even laptops)
with multiple disks? It is so incredibly easy to setup a mirror of your
filesystem in ZFS, and with a hot spare in your storage pool you can
automatically set it up to failover and notify you. Perhaps someday
storage in a PC will be as simple as it is with a digital camera or
something? I don't see how this sort of thing would be that far off...
The other incredibly nice feature of ZFS that is a huge net gain for
almost all of us is its snapshot ability. Snapshots are block level,
meaning that whenever a file is changed you don't need to keep a
complete copy of that file, a mess of hard links and all of that sort of
stuff you'd find in a solution such as Apple's Time Machine or many of
the backup snapshot solutions we concoct with shell scripts. Taking
snapshots is *incredibly fast*, incredibly easy to manage, and you can
browse these snapshots without having to create new inodes and hard
links - these are, as I understand it, simply very low level references
to files, but not files themselves. Still, you can copy individual files
from snapshots as you would copy any file, or restore an entire file
system from a snapshot. This is so easy to do and takes up so little
disk space that not only is this a great way to do backups, but it is
also a great way to create yourself an "oh shit" safety net should you
want to back out of an update that has gone bad, etc.
I could go on about the many features and nice aspects to using ZFS,
features like self healing, zpool iostat, etc. It's pretty cool stuff,
but I'll leave my gushing for another time. Like I said, I'm just
speaking to the features here...
Still, I wanted to see what you guys thought about the future of modern
file systems such as ZFS? I realize that it will be a long time before
BTRFS is ready, perhaps even longer for this sort of thing to make its
way to OS X and/or Windows, but now that the bar as been set I'm sure it
is only a matter of time before the copycats emerge. However things end
up, who owns what, licenses, product names, etc. This seems like a very
big deal to me. It is definitely changing the way I think of my data,
and I'm surprised how easy it is to setup a storage appliance like the
one I'm testing.
OpenSolaris is actually pretty nice. There are a few proprietary Sun
things included, but a lot of it seems pretty familiar to me - bash,
Gnome, etc. I would say that if you are looking for a storage solution
that OpenSolaris shouldn't really be a deterrent. FreeBSD 8 is in RC3,
and it will include full ZFS support (previous versions include partial
support), so this is another option.
Any other ZFS users/enthusiasts here?
--
Joe Auty
NetMusician: web publishing software for musicians
http://www.netmusician.org
joe@netmusician.org
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
Jim,
Are you familiar with /proc/cpuinfo and lspci ?
Learning to read the information provided by those tools can unlock a
world of diagnostic goodness. When I encounter unknown hardware the
first thing I try is booting from a Linux LiveCD and running those two
commands.
/proc/cpuinfo will tell you the "stepping" for a CPU, as well as flag a
number of CPU idiosyncrasies. If you know how to read the information,
you can find out if it is an old Celeron or a newer one.
Cheers,
Steven Black
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
For each given system, I would say that installing most software most of
the time just works, provided that you learn what you need to do. Even a
fairly novice user can learn to build SlackBuilds, and they only have to
do that when a prebuilt package does not already exist. It's not much more
work than anything else. Dragging and Dropping in Mac, Installer Wizards
on Windows, and Package Managers on Linux machines are all fairly easy.
When things work the way they are supposed to, it's fairly
straightforward on any system. Removing software can be more hairy on
some than others, but most users don't care about that as much.
The problem isn't in the perfect situation, but rather the case where
things break. They will, especially when installing software. Debian
faithful can argue all day long that this shouldn't happen on the stable
platform, but the truth is: the normal desktop user isn't going to be
running Debian stable, and certainly isn't going to be content with the
normal software installed in a Debian repository (it's either too out of
date, or they want something they saw somewhere else). Even if they can
manage to stay within the repositories, bugs are bound to happen when
running the unstable versions, and when that happens, no matter what OS
you are using, it takes more than the novice user to figure out what to
do. Many people end up learning a thing or two about their OS and learn
how to fix them, but as soon as you move to a new OS, you have to
relearn this stuff.
I don't know of any way to fix this so that everyone is happy. The
Windows solution is usually to provide a few different installers, so
one of them will likely succeed. The Mac solution is to go into the
package contents of an App file and figure out what's going wrong,
assuming that you don't already get some support from your application
provider. The Debian Package manager solution is to hopefully limit this
problem by having huge, well tested repositories, so that they don't
every "get out of the safe zone." The Slackware solution is to make the
package process as simple as possible so it is easy to fix. The solution
with RPMs is usually to find a new RPM from some other place. :-)
None of these solutions is going to work for everyone. I don't know if
there is a solution that works for everyone.
--On Monday, November 16, 2009 05:53:03 PM -0500 Mark Warner
<markwarner1954@att.net> wrote:
> As my experience is limited to mostly apt/Synaptic distros, I'd venture
> to say that installing software is far *easier* for a Linux user than a
> Windows user... as long as you can break them of the habit of trying to
> download an installer and running it from the desktop. :-)
_______________________________________________
BLUG mailing list
BLUG@linuxfan.com
http://mailman.cs.indiana.edu/mailman/listinfo/blug
