zfs discuss - Dec 2007 - Help needed ZFS vs Veritas Comparison

Hi Everyone ;

 

I will soon be making a presentation comparing ZFS against Veritas Storage
Foundation , do we have any document comparing features ?

 

regards

 

 


 <http://www.sun.com/> http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif

Mertol Ozyoney 
Storage Practice - Sales Manager

Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +902123352222
Email  <mailto:Ayca.Yalcin at Sun.COM> mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM

 

 

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071228/9e78e709/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071228/9e78e709/attachment.gif>

>
> I will soon be making a presentation comparing ZFS against Veritas Storage
> Foundation , do we have any document comparing features ?
>
Hi Mertol,

I think simple administration is at least one significant difference.
For example if you have new luns and want to use them to add a new
filesystem to your Solaris host you might do the following with ZFS...

zpool create mypool raidz d1 d2 d3 d4...

But with Veritas the following would be required to achieve the same result...

Label new luns, format
Make them visible to VxVM, vxdctl
Initialize luns as VxVM disks, vxdisksetup
Add them to a disk group, vxdg
Create a volume, vxassist
Create a filesystem, newfs
Add /etc/vfstab entry
mount /dev/vx/dsk/....

Good luck with your presentation.

Vic

Mertol Ozyoney wrote:
> Hi Everyone ;
> 
> I will soon be making a presentation comparing ZFS against Veritas
> Storage Foundation , do we have any document comparing features ?
Mertol,

I don''t have any experience of Veritas - I''ve only recently
come to the
Solaris world purely because of zfs.

For me, the attractive features of zfs (so much so that I''ve moved to
OpenSolaris from linux(CentOS) ) are, in no particular order:

1. data integrity - built-in checksumming
2. ease of administration
   * easy to create new storage
   * easy to manage storage
3. Integration with nfs and (recently) cifs
   * set property on zfs entity to create nfs/cifs share

zfs really is revolutionary. I am constantly amazed at what it can do
and how easy it is to do it.

Storage management tools in linux are good (md, lvm, etc) but the zfs
toolset is better, and far easier to use.

R.

Perhaps a few that might help:

http://www.sun.com/software/whitepapers/solaris10/zfs_veritas.pdf
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/stn/articles/article_detail.jsp?articleid=SF_and_ZFS_whitepaper_44545
http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3663066

I''m yet to see a side by side features comparison.

Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as:

- how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when
volumes are presented back to the same host)
- how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there
- Filesystem vs Volume snapshots
- Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN
visibility to multiple synchronous hosts)
- Disaster recovery scenarios
- Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays
- Boot volumes
- Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes

I can''t think of more right now, it''s way past midnight here
;)


On 12/28/07, Mertol Ozyoney <Mertol.Ozyoney at sun.com>
wrote:
>
> Hi Everyone ;
>
>
>
> I will soon be making a presentation comparing ZFS against Veritas Storage
> Foundation , do we have any document comparing features ?
>
>
>
> regards
>
>
>
>
>
> [image: http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif]
<http://www.sun.com/>
>
> *Mertol Ozyoney *
> Storage Practice - Sales Manager
>
> *Sun Microsystems, TR*
> Istanbul TR
> Phone +902123352200
> Mobile +905339310752
> Fax +902123352222
> Email mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM <Ayca.Yalcin at Sun.COM>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
>
>

-- 
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /????
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071229/a2fbbcd6/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: image/gif
Size: 1257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071229/a2fbbcd6/attachment-0001.gif>

On Dec 28, 2007 8:40 AM, Sengor <sengork at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as:
>
> - how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when volumes are
> presented back to the same host)
> - how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there
> - Filesystem vs Volume snapshots
> - Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN
> visibility to multiple synchronous hosts)
> - Disaster recovery scenarios
> - Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays
> - Boot volumes
> - Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes
Very good list!
> I can''t think of more right now, it''s way past midnight
here ;)
How about these?

- Integration with backup system
- Active-active cluster (parallel file system) capabilities
- Integration with OS maintenance activities (install, upgrade, patching, etc.)
- Relative performance on anticipated workload
- Staffing issues (what do people know, how many hours to train, how
long before proficiency)
- Supportability on multiple platforms at the site (e.g. Solaris,
Linux, HP-UX, AIX, ...)
- Impact of failure modes (missing license key especially major system
changes, on-disk corruption)
- Opportunities to do things previously not possible

ZFS doesn''t win on many of those, but with the improvements that I
have seen throughout the storage stack it is somewhat likely that the
required improvements are already on the roadmap.

-- 
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/

While you could have a wart-by-wart comparison, please remember that the
biggest difference is that ZFS is free ($) and open source, while SF is 
costly
(sometimes very costly) and closed source.  The warts are just minor, mostly
temporary, skin-deep issues.
 -- richard

Mike Gerdts wrote:
> On Dec 28, 2007 8:40 AM, Sengor <sengork at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as:
>>
>> - how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when volumes are
>> presented back to the same host)
>> - how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there
>> - Filesystem vs Volume snapshots
>> - Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN
>> visibility to multiple synchronous hosts)
>> - Disaster recovery scenarios
>> - Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays
>> - Boot volumes
>> - Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes
>>     
>
> Very good list!
>
>   
>> I can''t think of more right now, it''s way past
midnight here ;)
>>     
>
> How about these?
>
> - Integration with backup system
> - Active-active cluster (parallel file system) capabilities
> - Integration with OS maintenance activities (install, upgrade, patching,
etc.)
> - Relative performance on anticipated workload
> - Staffing issues (what do people know, how many hours to train, how
> long before proficiency)
> - Supportability on multiple platforms at the site (e.g. Solaris,
> Linux, HP-UX, AIX, ...)
> - Impact of failure modes (missing license key especially major system
> changes, on-disk corruption)
> - Opportunities to do things previously not possible
>
> ZFS doesn''t win on many of those, but with the improvements that I
> have seen throughout the storage stack it is somewhat likely that the
> required improvements are already on the roadmap.
>
>

Good points. I will try to Focus on these areas. 

Very best regards

 

 


 <http://www.sun.com/> http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif

Mertol Ozyoney 
Storage Practice - Sales Manager

Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +902123352222
Email mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM <mailto:Ayca.Yalcin at Sun.COM> 

 

 

From: Sengor [mailto:sengork at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 4:41 PM
To: Mertol.Ozyoney at Sun.COM
Cc: zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Help needed ZFS vs Veritas Comparison

 

Perhaps a few that might help:

http://www.sun.com/software/whitepapers/solaris10/zfs_veritas.pdf
http://www.symantec.com/enterprise/stn/articles/article_detail.jsp?articleid
=SF_and_ZFS_whitepaper_44545
http://www.serverwatch.com/tutorials/article.php/3663066 

I''m yet to see a side by side features comparison.

Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as:

- how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when volumes are
presented back to the same host) 
- how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there
- Filesystem vs Volume snapshots
- Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN
visibility to multiple synchronous hosts) 
- Disaster recovery scenarios
- Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays
- Boot volumes
- Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes

I can''t think of more right now, it''s way past midnight here
;)



On 12/28/07, Mertol Ozyoney <Mertol.Ozyoney at sun.com> wrote:

Hi Everyone ;

 

I will soon be making a presentation comparing ZFS against Veritas Storage
Foundation , do we have any document comparing features ?

 

regards

 

 


 <http://www.sun.com/> http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif

Mertol Ozyoney 
Storage Practice - Sales Manager

Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +902123352222
Email mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM <mailto:Ayca.Yalcin at Sun.COM> 

 

 


_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss> 




-- 
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /????

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071228/18cb8ffe/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 1257 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20071228/18cb8ffe/attachment.gif>

It''s becoming an excellent list for comparison. 

I agree that ZFS do not win on all of the catagories althought it is being
developed far faster then Storage Foundation 

By the way ZFS has one clear advantage against Veritas , it''s
completely
free.



Mertol Ozyoney 
Storage Practice - Sales Manager

Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile +905339310752
Fax +902123352222
Email mertol.ozyoney at Sun.COM


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Gerdts [mailto:mgerdts at gmail.com] 
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 5:14 PM
To: Sengor
Cc: Mertol.Ozyoney at Sun.COM; zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] Help needed ZFS vs Veritas Comparison

On Dec 28, 2007 8:40 AM, Sengor <sengork at gmail.com>
wrote:
> Real comparison of features should include scenarios such as:
>
> - how ZFS/VxVM compare in BCV like environments (eg. when volumes are
> presented back to the same host)
> - how they all cope with various multipathing solutions out there
> - Filesystem vs Volume snapshots
> - Portability within cluster like environments (SCSI reserves & LUN
> visibility to multiple synchronous hosts)
> - Disaster recovery scenarios
> - Ease/Difficulty with data migrations across physical arrays
> - Boot volumes
> - Online vs Offline attribute/parameter changes
Very good list!
> I can''t think of more right now, it''s way past midnight
here ;)
How about these?

- Integration with backup system
- Active-active cluster (parallel file system) capabilities
- Integration with OS maintenance activities (install, upgrade, patching,
etc.)
- Relative performance on anticipated workload
- Staffing issues (what do people know, how many hours to train, how
long before proficiency)
- Supportability on multiple platforms at the site (e.g. Solaris,
Linux, HP-UX, AIX, ...)
- Impact of failure modes (missing license key especially major system
changes, on-disk corruption)
- Opportunities to do things previously not possible

ZFS doesn''t win on many of those, but with the improvements that I
have seen throughout the storage stack it is somewhat likely that the
required improvements are already on the roadmap.

-- 
Mike Gerdts
http://mgerdts.blogspot.com/

While on a VCS course on a Symantec site, I was told VxVM is planned
to be open sourced some time in near future. In either case the cost
is a large factor here, VxVM does not come cheap (unless you use VxSF
Basic http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=sfbasic which
is free).

I see  VxSF Basic being an immediate competitor to ZFS where the cost
does not count as much.

On 12/29/07, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com>
wrote:
> While you could have a wart-by-wart comparison, please remember that the
> biggest difference is that ZFS is free ($) and open source, while SF is
> costly
> (sometimes very costly) and closed source.  The warts are just minor,
mostly
> temporary, skin-deep issues.
>  -- richard

-- 
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /????

Sengor wrote:
> While on a VCS course on a Symantec site, I was told VxVM is planned
> to be open sourced some time in near future. In either case the cost
> is a large factor here, VxVM does not come cheap (unless you use VxSF
> Basic http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=sfbasic which
> is free).
VxVM has far fewer features than ZFS, you really can''t compare them.
You could compare VxVM to SVM more directly.
> I see  VxSF Basic being an immediate competitor to ZFS where the cost
> does not count as much.
Yes, I think VxSF Basic is a good thing, but it would not exist if there
were no competitive pressures from the OS *and* hardware vendors.  The
competitive landscape for the low-end systems clearly dictates that, for
today, (software and hardware) RAID is free($).
  -- richard
> On 12/29/07, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote:
>> While you could have a wart-by-wart comparison, please remember that
the
>> biggest difference is that ZFS is free ($) and open source, while SF is
>> costly
>> (sometimes very costly) and closed source.  The warts are just minor,
mostly
>> temporary, skin-deep issues.
>>  -- richard
> 
>

Sengor wrote:
> While on a VCS course on a Symantec site, I was told VxVM is planned
> to be open sourced some time in near future. In either case the cost
> is a large factor here, VxVM does not come cheap (unless you use VxSF
> Basic http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=sfbasic which
> is free).
>
> I see  VxSF Basic being an immediate competitor to ZFS where the cost
> does not count as much.
>
> On 12/29/07, Richard Elling <Richard.Elling at sun.com> wrote:
>   
>> While you could have a wart-by-wart comparison, please remember that
the
>> biggest difference is that ZFS is free ($) and open source, while SF is
>> costly
>> (sometimes very costly) and closed source.  The warts are just minor,
mostly
>> temporary, skin-deep issues.
>>  -- richard
>>     
>
>
>   
VxSF Basic sounds like good cost competition, until you realize it is 
limited to 4 data volumes and/or 4 filesystems and 2 or less CPU sockets.

I believe it will work on systems wich have more than 2 cores, however
only 2 would actually end up being used by VxSF & 4 volumes is not a
hard software limit from what I understand.

It''s important to note it will not come with any support, perhaps this
is another point where ZFS rises above in terms of features?
> VxSF Basic sounds like good cost competition, until you realize it is
> limited to 4 data volumes and/or 4 filesystems and 2 or less CPU sockets.

-- 
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /????

Hello Richard,

Friday, December 28, 2007, 9:48:53 PM, you wrote:

RE> Sengor wrote:
>> While on a VCS course on a Symantec site, I was told VxVM is planned
>> to be open sourced some time in near future. In either case the cost
>> is a large factor here, VxVM does not come cheap (unless you use VxSF
>> Basic http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=sfbasic which
>> is free).
RE> VxVM has far fewer features than ZFS, you really can''t compare
them.
RE> You could compare VxVM to SVM more directly.

I can''t agree. VxVM + VxFS  vs.  ZFS is a good comparison.

One good feature in VxVM/VxFS is an ability to shrink a "pool" or
change RAID on-the-fly. Then you can change speed of resilvering or
even freeze it if you want. Hot spare support is probably still better
(I haven''t looked at latest improvements in ZFS yes). We''re
not there yet.

-- 
Best regards,
 Robert Milkowski                           mailto:rmilkowski at task.gda.pl
                                       http://milek.blogspot.com

On 12/29/07, Robert Milkowski <rmilkowski at task.gda.pl>
wrote:
> One good feature in VxVM/VxFS is an ability to shrink a "pool" or
> change RAID on-the-fly. Then you can change speed of resilvering or
> even freeze it if you want. Hot spare support is probably still better
> (I haven''t looked at latest improvements in ZFS yes).
We''re not there yet.
In addition to this, I believe that user generated IO takes precedence
over the VxSF generated IOs during volume restructuring.

-- 
_________________________________/ sengork.blogspot.com /????

Robert Milkowski wrote:
> Hello Richard,
>
> Friday, December 28, 2007, 9:48:53 PM, you wrote:
>
> RE> Sengor wrote:
>   
>>> While on a VCS course on a Symantec site, I was told VxVM is
planned
>>> to be open sourced some time in near future. In either case the
cost
>>> is a large factor here, VxVM does not come cheap (unless you use
VxSF
>>> Basic http://www.symantec.com/business/theme.jsp?themeid=sfbasic
which
>>> is free).
>>>       
>
> RE> VxVM has far fewer features than ZFS, you really can''t
compare them.
> RE> You could compare VxVM to SVM more directly.
>
> I can''t agree. VxVM + VxFS  vs.  ZFS is a good comparison.
>   
I was being very specific.  Even if VxVM is open sourced, you should compare
ZFS to VxVM+VxFS, not VxVM only.
> One good feature in VxVM/VxFS is an ability to shrink a "pool" or
> change RAID on-the-fly. Then you can change speed of resilvering or
> even freeze it if you want. Hot spare support is probably still better
> (I haven''t looked at latest improvements in ZFS yes).
We''re not there yet.
>
>   
Correct.  Warts.
 -- richard