zfs discuss - Apr 2010 - Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS (zfs)?

Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS?
I plann NAS  zfs + CIFS,iSCSI

Thanks
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the purpose, ans CIFS is dead in
this build.

I am using B133, but I am not sure if this is best choice. I''d like to
hear from others as well.

-Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Wed, April 14, 2010 08:52, Tonmaus wrote:
> safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the purpose, ans CIFS is dead
> in this build.
That''s strange; I run it every day (my home Windows "My
Documents" folder
and all my photos are on 2009.06).


-bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release
                         OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b X86
           Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All Rights Reserved.
                        Use is subject to license terms.
                              Assembled 07 May 2009

> I am using B133, but I am not sure if this is best choice. I''d
like to
> hear from others as well.
Well, it''s technically not a stable build.

I''m holding off to see what 2010.$Spring ends up being; I''ll
convert to
that unless it turns into a disaster.

Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example?  I don''t think the
old
builds are available after the next one comes out; I haven''t been able
to
find them.
-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

> 
> On Wed, April 14, 2010 08:52, Tonmaus wrote:
> > safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the
> purpose, ans CIFS is dead
> > in this build.
> 
> That''s strange; I run it every day (my home Windows
> "My Documents" folder
> and all my photos are on 2009.06).
> 
> 
> -bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release
> OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b
>  X86
> Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All
> Rights Reserved.
> Use is subject to license
>  terms.
>                              Assembled 07 May 2009

I would be really interested how you got past this
http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11371
which I was so badly bitten by that I considered giving up on OpenSolaris.
>  not sure if this is best choice. I''d like to
>  hear from others as well.
> Well, it''s technically not a stable build.
> 
> I''m holding off to see what 2010.$Spring ends up
> being; I''ll convert to
> that unless it turns into a disaster.
> 
> Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example?  I
> don''t think the old
> builds are available after the next one comes out; I
> haven''t been able to
> find them.
There are methods to upgrade to any dev build by pkg. Can''t tell you
from the top of my head, but I have done it with success.

I wouldn''t know why to go to 132 instead of 133, though. 129 seems to
be an option.

Regards,

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On Wed, April 14, 2010 11:51, Tonmaus wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, April 14, 2010 08:52, Tonmaus wrote:
>> > safe to say: 2009.06 (b111) is unusable for the
>> purpose, ans CIFS is dead
>> > in this build.
>>
>> That''s strange; I run it every day (my home Windows
>> "My Documents" folder
>> and all my photos are on 2009.06).
>>
>>
>> -bash-3.2$ cat /etc/release
>> OpenSolaris 2009.06 snv_111b
>>  X86
>> Copyright 2009 Sun Microsystems, Inc.  All
>> Rights Reserved.
>> Use is subject to license
>>  terms.
>>                              Assembled 07 May 2009
>
>
> I would be really interested how you got past this
> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11371
> which I was so badly bitten by that I considered giving up on OpenSolaris.

I don''t get random hangs in normal use; so I haven''t done
anything to "get
past" this.

I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may well be related to that
problem (at least they require a reboot).  Hmmm; I get hangs sometimes
when trying to send a full replication stream to an external backup drive,
and I have to reboot to recover from them.  I can live with this, in the
short term.  But now I''m feeling hopeful that they''re fixed in
what I''m
likely to be upgrading to next.
>>  not sure if this is best choice. I''d like to
>>  hear from others as well.
>> Well, it''s technically not a stable build.
>>
>> I''m holding off to see what 2010.$Spring ends up
>> being; I''ll convert to
>> that unless it turns into a disaster.
>>
>> Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example?  I
>> don''t think the old
>> builds are available after the next one comes out; I
>> haven''t been able to
>> find them.
>
> There are methods to upgrade to any dev build by pkg. Can''t tell
you from
> the top of my head, but I have done it with success.
>
> I wouldn''t know why to go to 132 instead of 133, though. 129 seems
to be
> an option.
Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-).  As
I say, I''m currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing how to
get
to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for the
future still.  Having been told it''s possible helps, makes it worth
looking harder.

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Wed, Apr 14, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Dmitry <dr256 at hotbox.ru>
wrote:
> Which build is the most stable, mainly for NAS?
> I plann NAS ?zfs + CIFS,iSCSI
I''m using b133. My current box was installed with 118, upgraded to
128a, then 133.

I''m avoiding b134 due to changes in the CIFS service that affect ACLs.
http://bugs.opensolaris.org/view_bug.do?bug_id=6706181

For any new installation, I would suggest b134, or wait for the
10.spring release, which should be based on b134 or b135.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

>>>>> "dd" == David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at
dd-b.net> writes:
    dd> Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example?

yeah, this is not so bad.  I know of two approaches:

 * genunix.org assembles livecd''s of each b<nnn> tag.  You can
burn
   one, unplug from the internet, install it.  It is nice to have a
   livecd capable of mounting whatever zpool and zfs version you are
   using.  I''m not sure how they do this, but they do it.

 * see these untested but relatively safe-looking instructions (apolo
   to whoever posted that i didn''t write down the credit):

formal IPS docs:
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/content/2009.06/IMGPACKAGESYS/index.html

how to get a specific snv build with ips
-----8<-----
Starting from OpenSolaris 2009.06 (snv_111b) active BE.

1) beadm create snv_111b-dev
2) beadm activate snv_111b-dev
3) reboot
4) pkg set-authority -O http://pkg.opensolaris.org/dev opensolaris.org
5) pkg install SUNWipkg
6) pkg list ''entire*''
7) beadm create snv_118
8) beadm mount snv_118 /mnt
9) pkg -R /mnt refresh
10) pkg -R /mnt install entire at 0.5.11-0.118
11) bootadm update-archive -R /mnt
12) beadm umount snv_118
13) beadm activate snv_118
14) reboot

Now you have a snv_118 development environment.

also see:
 http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=3436
 which currently says about the same thing.
-----8<-----

you see the b<nnn> is specified in line 10, entire at 0.5.11-0.<nnn>

There is no ``failsafe'''' boot archive with opensolaris like
the
ramdisk-based one that was in the now-terminated SXCE, so you should
make a failsafe boot option yourself by cloning a working BE and
leaving that clone alone.  and...make the failsafe clone new enough to
understand your pool version or else it''s not very useful. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100414/ca04764a/attachment.bin>

On Wed, April 14, 2010 15:28, Miles Nordin wrote:
>>>>>> "dd" == David Dyer-Bennet <dd-b at
dd-b.net> writes:
>
>     dd> Is it possible to switch to b132 now, for example?
>
> yeah, this is not so bad.  I know of two approaches:
Thanks, I''ve filed and flagged this for reference.

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

On Wed, Apr 14 at 13:16, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>I don''t get random hangs in normal use; so I haven''t done
anything to "get
>past" this.
Interesting.  Win7-64 clients were locking up our 2009.06 server
within seconds while performing common operations like searching and
copying large directory trees.

Luckilly I could still rollback to 101b which worked fine (except for
a CIFS bug because of its age), and my roll-forward to b130 was
successful as well.  We now have our primary on b130 and our slave
server on b134, with no stability issues in either one.
>I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may well be related to that
>problem (at least they require a reboot).  Hmmm; I get hangs sometimes
>when trying to send a full replication stream to an external backup drive,
>and I have to reboot to recover from them.  I can live with this, in the
>short term.  But now I''m feeling hopeful that they''re
fixed in what I''m
>likely to be upgrading to next.
Yes, hopefully.

--eric

-- 
Eric D. Mudama
edmudama at mail.bounceswoosh.org

On 04/15/10 06:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-).  As
> I say, I''m currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing how
to get
> to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for the
> future still.
I hope it''s 2010.$Autumn, I don''t fancy waiting until October.

Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist!

As to which build is more stable, that depends what you want to do with it.

-- 
Ian.

On 14-Apr-10 22:44, Ian Collins wrote:
> On 04/15/10 06:16 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> Because 132 was the most current last time I paid much attention :-).
As
>> I say, I''m currently holding out for 2010.$Spring, but knowing
how to get
>> to a particular build via package would be potentially interesting for
>> the
>> future still.
>
> I hope it''s 2010.$Autumn, I don''t fancy waiting until
October.
>
> Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist!
I''ve even been there.

But the month/season relationship is too deeply built into too many 
things I follow (like the Christmas books come out of the publisher''s 
fall list; for that matter, like that Christmas is in the winter) to go 
away at all easily.

California doesn''t have seasons anyway.

-- 
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b at dd-b.net; http://dd-b.net/
Snapshots: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/data/
Photos: http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery/
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On 14-Apr-10 22:44, Ian Collins wrote:
>> Hint: the southern hemisphere does exist!
>
> I''ve even been there.
>
> But the month/season relationship is too deeply built into too many 
> things I follow (like the Christmas books come out of the
publisher''s
> fall list; for that matter, like that Christmas is in the winter) to 
> go away at all easily.
>
> California doesn''t have seasons anyway.
>
Yes we do:  Wet Season and Dry Season (if you''re in the Bay Area) or
Dry
Season and Burn-Baby-Burn Season (if you live in LA or thereabouts).

<wink>

Oops. Forgot San Francisco:  Fog Season and well... Ummm... Fog Season.


-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

Yesterday I received a victim.

"SuperServer 5026T-3RF 19" 2U, Intel X58, 1xCPU LGA1366 8xSAS/SATA
hot-swap drive bays, 8 ports SAS LSI 1068E, 6 ports SATA-II Intel ICH10R,
2xGigabit Ethernet"

and i have 2 ways Openfiler vs Opensolaris :)
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

8 hot swap bays is not too much. The rest looks like a cake walk for OSol. But
with this HW you can''t go for 2009.06 anyhow, as ICH-10 won''t
be recognized. (I tried this on x58)

I have a 2U enclosure as well (12-bay), but I''d opt for at least 3U
next time, as there are too many restrictions for LP add-in cards, let alone
bays, bays, bays...

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

hello

if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest not to use
opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a more server like opensolaris
distribution like eon (minimal opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community
edition (free version of their commercial storage server based on osol build 134
with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free napp-it web-gui.

they support all the new stuff (dedup, zfs3, comstar, crossbow etc) and they
should work with your hardware.

gea
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

> > I would be really interested how you got past this
> >
> http://defect.opensolaris.org/bz/show_bug.cgi?id=11371
> > which I was so badly bitten by that I considered
> giving up on OpenSolaris.
> 
> 
> I don''t get random hangs in normal use; so I haven''t
> done anything to "get
> past" this.
> 
> I DO get hangs when funny stuff goes on, which may
> well be related to that
> problem (at least they require a reboot).  Hmmm; I
> get hangs sometimes
> when trying to send a full replication stream to an
> external backup drive,
> and I have to reboot to recover from them.  I can
> live with this, in the
> short term.  But now I''m feeling hopeful that they''re
> fixed in what I''m
> likely to be upgrading to next.
That sounds that the only difference probably was the amount of data transferred
on your and my system. We are working with media files here, each multiple
Gigabytes, hence the varying mileage, I assume.

FW 2010.x is concerned, my expectations are from past experience with last
release. I test 2010 maybe even more rigidly before I will jump to it.
"Technical" stability as you put it before, is basically the same for
Dev and Release builds both from phenomenon and consequence perspective in a
OpenSolaris environment.

Regards,

Tonmaus
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On 15/04/10 06:29 PM, G?nther wrote:
> hello
>
> if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest
 > not to use opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a
 > more server like opensolaris distribution like eon (minimal
 > opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community edition (free
 > version of their commercial storage server based on osol build
 > 134 with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free
 > napp-it web-gui.


I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has
too much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are
firmly of the belief that it does not have enough.

You do know about "pkg uninstall", don''t you? And turning
off services that you don''t need? And that the bare metal
system installed from the liveCD/liveUSB stick is bereft
of those desktop apps you appear to disparage ?

What is your *actual* problem with OpenSolaris binary distro
as a base for a NAS system?



James C. McPherson
--
Senior Software Engineer, Solaris
Oracle
http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog

>> gea wrote:
>>
>> if you want to compair it against openfiler, i would suggest
> > not to use opensolaris itself (too much desktop stuff) but a
> > more server like opensolaris distribution like eon (minimal
> > opensolaris + napp-it) or nexentastor community edition (free
> > version of their commercial storage server based on osol build
> > 134 with web-gui) or free nexenta (core) edition with my free
> > napp-it web-gui.
>
>
> I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has
> too much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are
> firmly of the belief that it does not have enough.
>
> You do know about "pkg uninstall", don''t you? And
turning
> off services that you don''t need? And that the bare metal
> system installed from the liveCD/liveUSB stick is bereft
> of those desktop apps you appear to disparage ?
>
> What is your *actual* problem with OpenSolaris binary distro
> as a base for a NAS system?
>
>
>
> James C. McPherson
> -- 
> Senior Software Engineer, Solaris
> Oracle
> http://www.jmcp.homeunix.com/blog

hello james

i suppose it`s a matter of me.
so let me tell the whole story.

i come from the mac/ windows world with less
unix and no solaris knowledge, working at a
university of design in germany - but experienced
with computer since the old cp/m 8bit days.

two years ago, when apple announced to adopt zfs
i took a deeper look at zfs (+ opensolaris).

i was very impressed about the features of zfs and
i decided to switch our ad-windows smb file- and
webserver to machines with zfs asap. (hoped it would
be on a mac)

i installed opensolaris and my first impression was very
disappointing. the gui was slow and not very intuitive
and the only thing thats''s running fine was the browser.
i then was looking how to install the needed things for a
ad-cifs server and a lamp server.

some hours/ days/ weeks later whith the help of google
i investigated what sunXX whatever package is needed or
not needed - to discover ad integration is a hell with
unix mappings, nobody knowing how to do it in a simply
running manner - each howto more complicated than the other.

it took me days to see, its just simple, do it the minimalst
way by assigning just domain-admin to root and do all the rest
from my windows machine.

or other example is acl integration. if you want to use the
beast just to replace a windows server, you have to go the hard
way to understand the concept behind quite deeply.
google was no help. it seems nobody is using it just as a simple
mac/ windows server replacement - each howto much more complicated
than the other.


i decided NOT to use opensolaris due to lack of usability.
it''s not funny to handle it from a mac/ windows user view. my job
is running a computer center with user, storage, video and multimedia,
network-administration, server and services in mind -
not low level os administration. i?ve got stomach ache when things
that should be just simple are so complicated.

i then discovered nexentastor. that seems to be the solution -
a stripped down installation to those things i was really needing:
zfs, smb-server, webserver, iscsi + nfs server. i installed it, start the
web-gui and to say it with a ad-word from apple: "there is no step
three"

everything was just running - (not working to be honest). but up to
then i had learned to handle the un-needed complicated things like
user-mappings and chaotic acls and storage-defaults to have it function
much like a simple smb or nas-server.

not beeing satisfied with the nexentastor gui, wanting to have newer
features from current opensolaris builds or to install other applications,
preferring open software, i tried free nexenta (core) and eon, a stripped
down opensolaris. and i have to say: thats the way i could live with.


vs opensolaris:
after installing nexenta in a few minutes, its just a running zfs server.
thats much more easier than opensolaris. there you must install these server
things AND you must deinstall/ deactivate not needed things.  for a server
i only need a (missing) remote management capabilities not a full 
featured gui.
if opensolaris will be simple, not as simple as a mac server - but 
simple enough,
i would be the first to use.


beiing inspirated from thinks like openfiler i began to write my own web-gui
named napp-it to handle those things, i will need, together with a how 
to make
a zfs server just running for simple needs and for non unix/ opensolaris 
people.
for this i use nexenta or eon as base system, although it would run on
opensolaris without change as well - but i do not need more than those 
things that
are included in a minimal installation + some things that are also not 
in a fresh
opensolaris installation. if someone will try it -its free.


i write these things to you because it may help to improve opensolaris 
and zfs
technologie in a way it become more usable for "the rest of us".
- people like me who are saying, a intelligent person must be able to 
handle it
not beeing a certified cisco/ oracle/ microsoft/ sun or whatever engineer.

zfs is really "next generation"; opensolaris not
(technically yes but not from user experience)

- not for a server
- not for a desktops
- not for a user.


but - i must agree: zfs and all of the other things from current 
opensolaris are so
hot - they are worth to learn - yes worth but you should not need.





guenther alka
also known as gea


-- 


H          f   G
Hochschule f?r Gestaltung
university of design

Schw?bisch Gm?nd
Marie-Curie-Str. 19
73529 Schw?bisch Gm?nd

Guenther Alka, Dipl.-Ing. (FH)
Leiter des Rechenzentrums
head of computer center

Thanks for the tips, 
I tried EON, but it is too minimalistic, I plan to use this server for other
(monitoring server and etc.)
Nexenta is a strange hybrid, and use the not commercial version, without its
ability, i don''t know...

A napp-it i''ll try for sure
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

hello dr245

free nexentastor community edition = commercial edition without support,
without additions like high availability or vmware/ xen management
and limited to 12 tb 

nexenta (core) is just the same system (opensolaris b134+ kernel with unix tools
and handling, software will be the same than ubuntu server - some time)
without the gui and additions of nexentastor.

but nexenta (core) is more open and usable for other things like database 
and webserver, free and open without any restrictions and not so minimalistic
than eon.
- i switched our server (fileserver, webserver and nfs - esxi storage to
nexenta (mainly core but we have also nexentastor) .
napp-it  is a software i wrote to manage our nexentas as simple as possible
- add functions when i need them.

gea


gea
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

>>>>> "jcm" == James C McPherson <James.McPherson at
oracle.com> writes:
>>>>> "ga" == G?nther Alka <alka at
hfg-gmuend.de> writes:
   jcm> I am amazed that you believe OpenSolaris binary distro has too
   jcm> much desktop stuff. Most people I have come across are firmly
   jcm> of the belief that it does not have enough.

minification is stupid, anyway.  It causes way more harm than good.  I
can understand not wanting to have weird flavour-of-the-month daemons
running until you''ve been bothered to learn what they do, but not
wanting to have their binaries on the disk is just silly.  It''s also
annoying when some sysadmin minifies away xauth so that ''ssh
-Y''
doesn''t work, or minifies away vi because he uses nano---his OCD
becomes unreasonable biggotry taking the place of building a workable
consensus platform, which is the proper task at hand when deciding
what to include and how to present it.

But it gets much worse when the minifiers start reaching into the
packages themselves and turning off options.  Ex., they will turn off
the Perl/Python scripting support for some common package because they
want to yank out Perl and Python to make the distribution smaller.  Or
they do not want to ship libX11.so, so they''ll rebuild packages with X
support switched off.  Once they''ve done that, if you actually need
those things, it will waste heaps more time to track down what went
wrong.  

The existence of the knobs themselves is harmful enough, but the
popular demand of idiots for this kind of knob wastes the time of the
non-idiot packagers expected to provide it: they have to split the
result of a single build into twenty tiny interdependent subpackages,
shim dlopen() in there where it wasn''t before (if it''s a
binary
package system), and then go back and test the whole monster: wherever
they drop the ball, you suffer, and while they''re tossing the ball
around they''re spending time pandering to the damned minifiers instead
of making and updating other packages which are actually useful to
sane people.

The insanity gets pushed further when whole packages start factoring 
core pieces of functionality into ``modules'''', so now in Eye
of Gnome,
I have the ``double click on a picture to make it bigger
Module.so''''.
I guess, if I want to make my system smaller, I can use the packaging
system to remove the ability to double click on pictures and make them
bigger?  What the fuck?  The minification fetish has spread out both
directions from the packaging system and infected everything from the
architecture of the source code to the user-visible menu structure of
the app!

Minification zealotry should stick to systems running from NOR flash
like openwrt, or <1GB NAND systems like android.  It''s got no place
on
a system with disks.  

As a corrolary, any minification based on busting a binary into .so''s
and then scattering the .so''s into packages is stupid, because the
package systems where minification makes sense are source-based and
don''t need that, in fact suffer from it because the split binaries
contain more symbols and are larger in core and larger on disk.

Just say no to minification if you''re doing it because it
``feels''''
right.  Just knock it off.  Go work on your car stereo, or develop
perverted rituals with your espresso machine, instead.

    ga> i installed opensolaris and my first impression was very
    ga> disappointing.

yeah.  me, too: my first impression was ``the installer does not work
at all without X11.  oh, and BTW X11 does not work at all without
nVidia haha, ENJOY.''''  That was at least two years ago though.

    ga> the gui was slow and not very intuitive and the only thing
    ga> thats''s running fine was the browser.

wtf, mate?  You complain the install is not minimal, but then you
judge the overall system by the superficial impression its GUI makes?

    ga> if someone will try it -its free.

Is it?  I don''t really understand the nexenta license, which is why I
don''t bother with it.  The opensolaris licensing is already confusing
because parts of it are binary, and ''pkg'' makes it very easy
to
install things with non-redistributable licenses, or extremely weird
things like SunPro compilers that claim to have different licenses
depending on what you use them for or how you define yourself as a
person and include automatic agreements not to publish unfavorable
benchmarks and other similar bullshit.  It''s admirable, important, and
surprising to me that Solaris has actually managed to become a
redistributable livecd with a modern package system (yeah, and where''s
your darwin livecd, fanboy?), but still because of the ecosystem
opensolaris comes from you''re constantly one enter key away from
encumbering your system.

If you want it to be free maybe use freebsd---then you still get ZFS
but you get away from some of the lazy assertions, most of the binary
disk drivers and mid-layers, and from the stupid legacy disk-labeling.
FreeBSD also has a scripted build process all the way from source tree
to .iso that you can run yourself.  I''ve stuck with solaris so far
because I''ve got some sparc systems on which freebsd persistently runs
like shit, and want the latest ZFS, and want experience with something
other, and am interested in some of the other marketing pitches behind
solaris like crossbow, infiniband, good SMP support, pNFS & Lustre,
VirtualBox, and linux zones (thuogh at least this last pitch''s
delivered feature is seemingly-stagnant and misleadingly unfinished).

It''s disruptive for me to switch operating systems, even just every
five years, and I think some good projects so far have structure and
funding.  Sun hired so many good BSD developers I''m looking for a
platform that''s got realistic hope of mobilizing some money behind it
to feed developers and assure its future which Linux and Solaris have
more than FreeBSD does---their permissive license hasn''t even brought
them the corporate interest they claimed it would relative to more
restrictive ones, much less the trickle-down putbacks their just-so
stories predicted.  However the for-profit corporate world hasn''t got
the reputation for long-view stability over decades that the free
Unixes do, and especially if FreeBSD would give up its MIPS fetish and
start working on an ARM port it could become interesting for ZFS fast,
so I really think both are worth a thought.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 304 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20100415/ebdb6e97/attachment.bin>

"free nexentastor community edition = commercial edition without
support,"
You are opened my eyes :) 
start to download, tomorrow will look
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

> Is it? ?I don''t really understand the nexenta license, which is
why I
> don''t bother with it.
In the simplest terms,

NCP (nexenta.org) = Free as in speech/beer

NexentaStor Community Edition (nexentastor.org) = Free as in beer
  - NCP underneath + closed WebGUI + FOSS plugins

NexentaStor enterprise edtion (nexenta.com) = Costs $$
  - NCP underneath + closed UI + enterprise plugins ($$)

~Anil