Oracle changed the Solaris license terms?
in [Solaris]
|
From: Chris Ridd on 24 Mar 2010 06:36 On 2010-03-24 09:59:14 +0000, Michael Laajanen said: > Hi, > > Sami Ketola wrote: >> ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? >>> There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll >>> gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. >> >> Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. >> >> Sami >> > How about expaning it, adding disks to a pool is this also in the > pipiline since I have experienced more problems with to a need to > expand than to shrink the fs. Expanding a pool (by adding new devices) has always been a feature. You can also expand by replacing (one at a time!) existing devices with bigger ones if you have autoexpand set on. I'm not sure when that feature arrived. -- Chris
From: Andrew Gabriel on 24 Mar 2010 07:57 In article <cHwpn.44115$sx5.18895(a)newsfe16.iad>, Canuck57 <Canuck57(a)nospam.com> writes: > On 21/03/2010 11:45 AM, Casper H.S. Dik wrote: >> Canuck57<Canuck57(a)nospam.com> writes: >> >>> Agreed, zones is just chroot on steroids. Ok, maybe a little more but >>> basically is an extention of chroot. Not a bad implimentation either. >>> But I prefer the VM approach after having used both. >> >> VMs are generally much, much more expensive. (You can do a couple >> of VMs on one system but 100s zones) >> >>> For example, a zone setup with sparse zones, now you want to patch 10 >>> running zones and get all the support to agree on one date, you have to >>> do them all at once. Or if you whole root them from the start, you >>> loose the benefits of sparse and might as well be a VM and scheduling >>> patches etc is easier. >> >> Clearly, patches in Solaris 10 are a pain. It is something we're >> trying to fix. >> >>> Might even try OpenSolaris it once I here they get ICH[7/8/9/10]R >>> drivers in SATA RAID mode. Is that still an issue? Because last I >>> checked it was a huge issue and major cause for people going to other >>> OSes. IF you had a BIOS switch to IDE mode emulation you could run it, >>> and many if not all newer systems don't have that option. Go by your >>> average Acer or HP quad proc from best Buy (AMD or Intel), and neither >>> Solaris runs. >> >> SATA works, RAID does not. You don't need to use IDE mode. >> >> Casper > > I don't argue that some SATA chipsets work, just that many in the very > popular ICH[7/8/9/10]R family do not. Even Sun says: > > Cite: > http://www.sun.com/bigadmin/hcl/hcts/install_check.jsp > > Line: > The disk is a SATA disk. Change the BIOS to make the SATA controller > work in legacy or compatible mode. > > So legacy mode is needed, provided your system has it. If it does not > you are SOL. Lots of PCs like this. No, you need a BIOS which can a) Disable RAID mode, and b) having done so, doesn't still claim it's a RAID device. It's not a chipset problem - it's a buggy BIOS problem. Solaris could plough on regardless and use the RAID device as a non-RAID device, but as it would have no clue if it was destroying data belonging to other OS's, that's a big No-No. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
From: Andrew Gabriel on 24 Mar 2010 07:59 In article <80u63iFikcU1(a)mid.individual.net>, Michael Laajanen <michael_laajanen(a)yahoo.com> writes: > Hi, > > Sami Ketola wrote: >> ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? >>> There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll >>> gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. >> >> Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. Some of the foundation work for this has been putback already. > How about expaning it, adding disks to a pool is this also in the > pipiline since I have experienced more problems with to a need to expand > than to shrink the fs. ZFS has been able to do this since long before it was ever released. -- Andrew Gabriel [email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]
From: Michael Laajanen on 24 Mar 2010 09:41 Hi, Chris Ridd wrote: > On 2010-03-24 09:59:14 +0000, Michael Laajanen said: > >> Hi, >> >> Sami Ketola wrote: >>> ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>>> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? >>>> There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll >>>> gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. >>> >>> Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. >>> >>> Sami >>> >> How about expaning it, adding disks to a pool is this also in the >> pipiline since I have experienced more problems with to a need to >> expand than to shrink the fs. > > Expanding a pool (by adding new devices) has always been a feature. > Right a pool can be expanded by adding a new vdev, but adding a disk to a vdev was what I meant and it is a pain to not have that. > You can also expand by replacing (one at a time!) existing devices with > bigger ones if you have autoexpand set on. I'm not sure when that > feature arrived. > Hmm, that must have been about 2-3 years ago atleast. /michael
From: Casper H.S. Dik on 24 Mar 2010 10:01
Michael Laajanen <michael_laajanen(a)yahoo.com> writes: >Hi, >Sami Ketola wrote: >> ITguy <southallc(a)gmail.com> wrote: >>>> ZFS is so awesome you can't even shrink it on the fly yet? >>> There are plenty of file systems in use that can't be shrunk. I'll >>> gladly take all the benefits of ZFS and live with this limitation. >> >> Also ZFS device removal is already on the pipeline. >> >> Sami >> >How about expaning it, adding disks to a pool is this also in the >pipiline since I have experienced more problems with to a need to expand >than to shrink the fs. Expanding a pool was available in the first release of ZFS. The only thing you cannot do is adding a disk to a raidz group (but you concatenate an additional raidz group) (zpool add) Casper -- Expressed in this posting are my opinions. They are in no way related to opinions held by my employer, Sun Microsystems. Statements on Sun products included here are not gospel and may be fiction rather than truth. |