Hi, I m sure some of you may have heard this already '' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'' from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon... Has anyone put together a white paper or a presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs WAFL. S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is some solid material with technical details....I would really appreciate it. Thanks for any pointers. /Praveen
On 7/27/06, Praveen Mogili <praveen_mogili at yahoo.com> wrote:> > Hi, > > I m sure some of you may have heard this already > '' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'' > from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon... > > Has anyone put together a white paper or a > presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs > WAFL. > > S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is > some solid material with technical details....I would > really appreciate it. >Hi I have attached comparison I did of the two systems. Didn''t go into much detail, but its pretty clear that ZFS has a lot more features and less limitations than AWFL. James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com> Thanks for any pointers. > /Praveen > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
one more time with the attachment On 7/27/06, James Dickens <jamesd.wi at gmail.com> wrote:> On 7/27/06, Praveen Mogili <praveen_mogili at yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Hi, > > > > I m sure some of you may have heard this already > > '' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'' > > from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon... > > > > Has anyone put together a white paper or a > > presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs > > WAFL. > > > > S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is > > some solid material with technical details....I would > > really appreciate it. > > > Hi > > I have attached comparison I did of the two systems. Didn''t go into > much detail, but its pretty clear that ZFS has a lot more features and > less limitations than AWFL. > > James Dickens > uadmin.blogspot.com > > > > Thanks for any pointers. > > /Praveen > > _______________________________________________ > > zfs-discuss mailing list > > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss > > >-------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: ZFS vs AWFL.pdf Type: application/pdf Size: 40309 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20060727/d78bfc86/attachment.pdf>
James, This might be interesting to add to the file system wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems I don''t see WAFL there... Bev. James Dickens wrote:> one more time with the attachment > > On 7/27/06, James Dickens <jamesd.wi at gmail.com> wrote: >> On 7/27/06, Praveen Mogili <praveen_mogili at yahoo.com> wrote: >> > >> > Hi, >> > >> > I m sure some of you may have heard this already >> > '' ZFS is a reverse engineered WAFL'' >> > from NetApp guys. If not, you will soon... >> > >> > Has anyone put together a white paper or a >> > presentation or some bullet points positioning ZFS vs >> > WAFL. >> > >> > S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is >> > some solid material with technical details....I would >> > really appreciate it. >> > >> Hi >> >> I have attached comparison I did of the two systems. Didn''t go into >> much detail, but its pretty clear that ZFS has a lot more features and >> less limitations than AWFL. >> >> James Dickens >> uadmin.blogspot.com >> >> >> > Thanks for any pointers. >> > /Praveen >> > _______________________________________________ >> > zfs-discuss mailing list >> > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > >> > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20060727/4e663f25/attachment.html>
From a RAS perspective, ZFS''s end-to-end data integrity feature is critical. If the competing file system doesn''t have this capability, then they can''t play in this sandbox. -- richard
> one more time with the attachmentI wouldn''t say that either system had "Raid-5". Both raid-4 and raid-z have significant differences in how they work from raid-5. Netapp certainly has quotas, but they''re not as flexible as ZFS. Can you explain more what you mean by ''Raw device'' and ''volume support''? -- Darren Dunham ddunham at taos.com Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. >
On Thu, Jul 27, 2006 at 10:17:47AM -0700, Praveen Mogili wrote:> S10 and ZFS is opensource is great but If there is > some solid material with technical details....I would > really appreciate it.The ZFS on-disk file format is here: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/docs/ondiskformatfinal.pdf Then there''s the OpenSolaris ZFS Community page: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/;jsessionid=4BE8172D3E39F7C503128486AB5E6052 which includes quite a bit of information or links to it. A Google search for "ZFS" in the blogs.sun.com site, http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&q=zfs+site%3Ablogs.sun.com&btnG=Search reveals a wealth of information in many blog entries. The history of filesystems is fairly long. The BSD 4.4 Log Structured Filesystem, in particular, going back to the mid-to-late `80s, is very interesting; COW (copy-on-write), transactions, and decoupling the location of writes from the type of data being written (data vs. meta-data) goes back to the BSD 4.4 LFS and probably earlier, as these were hot topics in the world of databases back then. Cheers, Nico --
On 7/27/06, Darren Dunham <ddunham at taos.com> wrote:> > one more time with the attachment > > I wouldn''t say that either system had "Raid-5". Both raid-4 and raid-z > have significant differences in how they work from raid-5. > > Netapp certainly has quotas, but they''re not as flexible as ZFS. > > Can you explain more what you mean by ''Raw device'' and ''volume support''? >I added foot notes to explain some of those features, and corrected a glaring typo its WAFL not AWFL you can checkout the new versions at http://unixconsult.org/wafl/ZFS%20vs%20WAFL.pdf or http://unixconsult.org/wafl/ZFS%20vs%20WAFL.html James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com> -- > Darren Dunham ddunham at taos.com > Senior Technical Consultant TAOS http://www.taos.com/ > Got some Dr Pepper? San Francisco, CA bay area > < This line left intentionally blank to confuse you. > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >
I''ve had people mention that WAFL does indeed support clones of snapshots. Is this a "what version of WAFL" problem? Darren
On 7/28/06, Darren Reed <Darren.Reed at sun.com> wrote:> I''ve had people mention that WAFL does indeed support clones of snapshots. > Is this a "what version of WAFL" problem? >apparently so, but it is rather new from the impression given from this site: http://www.tournament.org.il/run/index.php?/archives/67-Ontap-Simulator,-and-some-insights-about-NetApp.html "I believe that the new "clone" method is based on the WAFL built-in snapshot capabilities. Although WAFL Snapshots are supposed to be space conservatives, they require a guaranteed space on the aggregation prior to commiting the clone itself. If the aggregation is too crowded, they will fail with the error message "not enough space". If there is enough for snapshots, but not enough to guarantee a full clone, you''ll get a message saying "space not guaranteed"." James Dickens uadmin.blogspot.com> Darren > >