Let's take a closer look at OpenSolaris, particularly its use of ZFS, network problems that people have reported, the use of bash, and differences between OpenSolaris and Solaris and Solaris Express. Note: This is the latest article in our OSNews Article Contest.
Post a Comment
Member since:
2005-07-07
From the graphs, it looks like ZFS provides much better filesystem performance. Notice how the read speed peaks for small files (well, it plateaus not peaks...) where it appears to be almost double the speed of ext3. As the filesize increases, performance drops to ext3 peak levels and it maintains that performance throughout.
I think that is significant as predictable filesystem performance allows you to have a better estimate of how your server/workstation will perform.
Member since:2005-07-08
I wished that I had more time and more hardware to test with, the iozone graphs definitely show some interesting patterns and it would be cool to see if they are limited by the hardware the test was initially run on, or it is a characteristic of the performance of the system.
Member since:
2006-11-07
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2005-07-06
It likely isn't redistributable. Sun was unable to secure agreements for many vendors that allow free, unlimited, redistribution of certain components.
One of the key goals of the new OpenSolaris distribution was that anyone could redistribute it in any way.
Member since:2008-06-05
It likely isn't redistributable. Sun was unable to secure agreements for many vendors that allow free, unlimited, redistribution of certain components. "
So what happens to users of that hardware when OpenSolaris gets released as Solaris 11? Will users that followed the HCL, as Mr. Escue suggested, be left out in the cold or will binary drivers get bundled into Solaris 11?
Member since:2005-07-08
More than likely OpenSolaris will not get FC drivers simply because it is targeted at desktop as opposed to Enterprise users. Solaris 11 will most definitely have them, along with SCSI and iSCSI support. But this is all speculation at this point because Sun could change direction tomorrow.
Member since:2006-05-13
If Open Solaris is targeted at the desktop, and not developers like SXDE and enterprise servers like every other version of Solaris, let me predict the outcome:
FAIL.
You seriously can't think that between Ubuntu, Blue Curve/RHEL, Gentoo, Windows and OS X, this thing has even a remote shot in hell?
Member since:2006-05-13
Member since:2005-07-06
It likely isn't redistributable. Sun was unable to secure agreements for many vendors that allow free, unlimited, redistribution of certain components. "
So what happens to users of that hardware when OpenSolaris gets released as Solaris 11? Will users that followed the HCL, as Mr. Escue suggested, be left out in the cold or will binary drivers get bundled into Solaris 11? [/q]
Sun will be providing alternate network repositories that allow access to non-redistributable resources.
In addition, the long-term support version of OpenSolaris will likely have additional options that are not currently available.
However, only Sun knows what they will do for certain.
I would encourage you to post about this issue on opensolaris-discuss.
Member since:2006-05-13
Trust me. Just go look up the pathetic ridiculous fighting over megaraid_sas and mfi.
They have TWO choices, plus they could simply rip the stuff right out of OpenBSD, NetBSD or FreeBSD, but someone actually did the heavy lifting and ported it for them. (Some random dude took mfi from openbsd and ported it lickety split).
Yet it took until svn_89 or something to get in. This has been going on for at least 18 more like 24 months. Check the Sun forums for a huge amounting of whining over PERC support.
Now try and get javaws for the Linux 64 JDK/JRE or the browser plugin for Linux 64. Its been 3 years (Since 1.5.0 FCS) since people started whining about that.
Sun has a lot of bureaucrats really choking the place. Lawyers and idiot PMs. Generally the engineering is top notch, but the branding and direction goes from rudderless to so so.
Member since:2008-06-05
Member since:
2005-07-06
Do you really need to know anything else?
Because a filesystem on its own is not enough for people to start praising OpenSolaris. There seems to be a misplaced automatic assumption that the mere mention of ZFS will be enough for everyone and cause mass drooling.
Well, most do, and the Unix-like operating system world has moved on now and better usability isn't just about being root. This is long overdue for Solaris, and it isn't really news.
That's as clear a case of networking not working as I've read. I'd be very disappointed if I had to resort to that on a Linux distribution (and I'd expect to see things like supplied hostnames handled OK as well), and it's a big reason why people use DHCP in the first place. The fact is, Ryan Paul couldn't get any of the networking tools to actually work and give him network access.
Getting up-to-date software in the Linux world is a perennial problem as well. Making this problem worse isn't going to help OpenSolaris.
I hear that argument all the time, but in practice it tends not to hold up. Software moves on, bugs and security problems are fixed in successive versions and general quality gets better. There's no evidence to suggest that using Gnome 2.20 is better than using Gnome 2.22 unless you're willing to backport fixes, as all the code goes into the new version. It still has all the same bugs and problems as it ever had, and having a very long incubation period doesn't solve the problem. Debian has this problem as well, as software versions they use become unsupported.
As long as you have a reasonable incubation, integration and testing period for your system, using a two year old piece software that no one is committing code to won't help you make things more stable.
I think it's fair to say that Sun's own OpenOffice developers don't use OpenSolaris as their development platform, and it shows.
The problem is that Solaris usage has declined dramatically over the past ten years, while Linux usage has soared, mainly because of a burgeoning enthusiast community. It's relatively easy to get Linux into the hands of someone, and demand has tended to shape how your average Linux distro looks today - the bash shell, NetworkManager, HAL, graphical installers etc. Many have just gone out and coded what they felt was needed.
This is why Sun have been pretty much forced into creating OpenSolaris. Leaving it as it is isn't an option if Sun wants it to be a viable financial investment unfortunately. It's not a great thing to say, but that's the bottom line.
Member since:2005-07-06
Do you really need to know anything else? "
It doesn't ship with OpenOffice because it has to fit on a single CD and there isn't any room for it right now.
It doesn't ship with the latest and great applications because OpenSolaris is FCS all the time. Meaning, the goal of the engineers is to be production ready all the time. Sun, unlike most GNU/Linux distributors doesn't simply throw a bunch of packages into a distribution and "call it good." Engineering and documentation evaluation is done for every single component shipped and that means things move somewhat slower.
I hear that argument all the time, but in practice it tends not to hold up. Software moves on, bugs and security problems are fixed in successive versions and general quality gets better. There's no evidence to suggest that using Gnome 2.20 is better than using Gnome 2.22 unless you're willing to backport fixes, as all the code goes into the new version. It still has all the same bugs and problems as it ever had, and having a very long incubation period doesn't solve the problem. Debian has this problem as well, as software versions they use become unsupported. "
Then, it should be fine, as Sun does backport many fixes and adds many fixes of their own. Sun doesn't just ship the raw bits that someone else produces.
I think it's fair to say that Sun's own OpenOffice developers don't use OpenSolaris as their development platform, and it shows. "
Wrong. Many of Sun's developers do use OpenSolaris, and they know they can easily install OpenOffice just by doing:
pkg install openoffice
While Sun definitely has room to improve things, things are nowhere near as dire as you would like to paint them.
Member since:2005-07-06
Wow.
If you'd read what I'd written, using software that is several versions behind the current version does not make you 'production ready' and does not give you any less bugs unless you're willing to backport vigorously as Debian do. You also end up having a diverged codebase that produces bugs not seen upstream. 'Production ready' means absolute jack and is generally just used as cover for this development model.
Well, they obviously have with this release because networking is a bit of a fundamental ;-). I had the same issue, and I was slightly astonished at what I had to do. I've never seen a system not just get an IP address from DHCP when asked. If that was a non-production ready Linux distro being reviewed it would be given a big thumbs down all round. I don't know what the article adds to that fact.
I'll come to you when I want to find some information on Sun's site then ;-).
Then what happens there is that you've effectively forked the software, as Debian does. This means that you're responsible for maintaining the software yourself, and in a project such as OpenSolaris that is trying to get more contributors and use more open source software and share resources for its own sake, that just seems a bit.......daft. At this point in time it isn't what Solaris needs.
Member since:2005-07-06
"Meaning, the goal of the engineers is to be production ready all the time.
If you'd read what I'd written, using software that is several versions behind the current version does not make you 'production ready' and does not give you any less bugs unless you're willing to backport vigorously as Debian do. You also end up having a diverged codebase that produces bugs not seen upstream. 'Production ready' means absolute jack and is generally just used as cover for this development model. "
Sorry, but that's just wrong.
And yes, they do backport vigorously.
Well, they obviously have with this release because networking is a bit of a fundamental ;-). "
Networking is supported on thousands of configurations. Unfortunately, in the PC world, there are millions of configurations.
On both my Desktop and Laptop, networking works just fine.
DHCP works just fine as far as I know. You haven't filed any bugs that I've seen, so I would suggest that you do so that any issues can be resolved.
I'll come to you when I want to find some information on Sun's site then ;-). "
Look at docs.sun.com, etc.
Then what happens there is that you've effectively forked the software, as Debian does. This means that you're responsible for maintaining the software yourself, and in a project such as OpenSolaris that is trying to get more contributors and use more open source software and share resources for its own sake, that just seems a bit.......daft. At this point in time it isn't what Solaris needs. "
No, that's what happens when you promise your customers that you will support them year after year. Enterprise-level distributions provide a certain level of stability and support.
In the future, you'll see OpenSolaris move to having six-month "bleeding edge" releases and a separate long term release to better streamline things.
Until then, complaining about software that is not that old (from a release perspective) is counter-productive.
As for the issues you've encountered, unless you file bugs, your complaints aren't useful.
Edited 2008-06-04 14:44 UTC
Member since:2007-07-27
Could you care to explain this?
"using software that is several versions behind the current version does not make you 'production ready' and does not give you any less bugs"
I thought it is a bad thing to run the latest bleeding edge software on production systems? But, hey, I am no sysadmin. What do I know?
Member since:2006-05-13
When doing things right, you stage and test things before relying on them. Solaris zones are a big plus, along with staging hardware and a good suite of tests to help vet the software and hardware in action.
Just to know how I feel as a long time Solaris user - OpenSolaris 2008.05 is not only not production-able, I doubt this lineage of software ever will be.
Member since:2006-04-18
Well, they obviously have with this release because networking is a bit of a fundamental ;-). I had the same issue, and I was slightly astonished at what I had to do. I've never seen a system not just get an IP address from DHCP when asked. If that was a non-production ready Linux distro being reviewed it would be given a big thumbs down all round. I don't know what the article adds to that fact.
My initial thought is you haven't been around very long then if you haven't had issues with DHCP clients. I don't know you, so I won't actually say that, but I've had to fight with DHCP on Linux, FreeBSD, IRIX, and Solaris in the past. Granted, Linux and FreeBSD are a lot cleaner with DHCP nowadays, but there used to be some serious issues.
On the flip side, I've had all kind of trouble using static IPs (!!) with Fedora 9. NetworkManager seems to get rather confused, my network adapter (Intel built-in on a Dell Latitude) doesn't always show up in the GUI, and I had to tweak a few things to have the interface come up on boot. I need to look for a bug report on that one...
Member since:2008-06-05
No it's not.
But it isn't.
This has never been true. Let's go back to day one. Sun never even implemented SysV packaging properly, for example. Sun's own docs on BigAdmin make reference to the fact that Sun sed is horribly broken. Yet it is broken to this day, and they won't bundle gsed with the OS.
Member since:
2005-07-06
JumpStart and flasharchives as you know them today are not coming back from what I understand. Similar functionality will be provided, but the previous tools, are not equipped to deal with ZFS root, etc. properly. I have also been told that parts of these tools are "encumbered" by third-party licenses.
But fear not, there will be an equivalent, eventually.
I would encourage you to install Visual Panels from the pkg.opensolaris.org repository. Visual Panels will be replacing SMC.
There is no space left on the CD for an office suite. As it is, there is just barely enough room on the CD for what is there. Unlike many GNU/Linux distributions, Sun doesn't split their 32-bit and 64-bit platforms, and they have better multi-lingual support on a Single CD.
Since many users have downloaded and installed OpenOffice from pkg.opensolaris.org (such as myself) I'd like to know how and what you did to try to install this.
Please report the specific steps to reproduce your desktop issue by filing a bug at http://defect.opensolaris.org/
Cheers.
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2008-06-05
Most other OSes have moved to DVDs by now, or at least offer the option. We saw at JavaOne what happens when you count on always having a fast net connection available.
Why not? It seems like a sensible idea.
Member since:2005-07-06
Most other OSes have moved to DVDs by now, or at least offer the option. We saw at JavaOne what happens when you count on always having a fast net connection available. "
A startlingly large majority of Sun's customers and potential customers surveyed apparently have CD-ROM drives instead of DVD drives. In fact, many of them don't have either!
In addition, since one of the target audiences was developing countries, keeping the install medium minimal was important.
I suspect Sun may end up offering an alternate version that provides the full content of the CD with an on-disk repository eventually.
However, only they know what their plans are long-term.
Why not? It seems like a sensible idea. [/q]
Because eventually, it is 32-bit support that will no longer be needed.
And, in my opinion, because it makes all platforms first class citizens.
Unlike most GNU/Linux distributions, Solaris supports a mixed 32-bit/64-bit environment that is virtually seamless to the user.
Member since:2005-07-08
I was asked by Sun about the DVD only option some time ago and I responded that Sun needed to consider the customers who use older hardware that either does not support a DVD drive, or that the necessary drive no longer exists. A lot of people within DoD tend to hang on to their older hardware for years. I am still seeing Ultra 1's, 2's, 5's and 10's slowly being sent out to DRMO by some and others scarfing them up because the projects they work on have no budget. Of course Sun went with the DVD option, but that is no big deal if you download the ISO and use lofiadm or use JumpStart.
For people who don't have a lot of experience with Solaris, they wouldn't know about being able to run 32 and 64-bit apps with no complaints and no real need for separate versions based on architecture.
Member since:2006-05-13
Because eventually, it is 32-bit support that will no longer be needed.
Its shocking to me that the company which invented the first implemented 64 bit OS and did it very well, far better than say, WOW64 crud on Windows, that the x86 installer up to solaris 10u5 is still 32-bit in x86 mode.
If sun is not going to offer a 64 bit installer for Solaris 10, but gives out DVDs of Solaris 10, I really dont get how the "old machine" crap is a valid excuse.
And yes, you do need a 64-bit installer unless you want a system with a dedicated boot disk, (which is sane), because the 32-bit solaris 10 kernel gets pissed at partitions larger than 1TB - for no valid reason.
Member since:2008-06-05
Member since:2006-05-13
Oh, don't forget that Solaris x86 uses the 32-bit installer on a 64-bit machine, and that, for no valid reason at all, prevents the making of filesystems larger than 1TB. (fixed in OS 2008.05, but 2008.05 is broken, but not fixed in solaris 10u5, so sun knows about it and gives the finger to the base).
Oh, and don't forget that GUID partition tables are not readable by a number of the family of snu-supplied disk utilities. (still busted in 2008.05).
Oh, and don't forget UFS's cluster size goes from 8192 @ 0.99TB to 1048576 at 1TB. (And ZFS is still not able to not fail under heavy loads so we are stuck with ufs and 1MB block sizes).
Oh, and /usr/ucb/ps is gone and SMC doesnt and get this, Java Web Console doesnt either.
LANG=C=true
LC_ALL=C=true
Member since:
2007-07-27
I dont get it, why are you always bashing Solaris as soon you see an article? You can not help to spew out gall on Solaris, you can not control yourself? Obviously, Solaris must have hurt you deep sometime. I wonder, what happened? Tell me. Solaris made you loose your first job? You ran a big site using Solaris, and the site crashed making you a laughing stock? Something must have happened. This focus on Solaris is not normal, nor healthy. Solaris is not the root of all evil. I dont get it?
Member since:2005-07-06
Wow....... An entire post about me because I don't see where Solaris is heading, don't see how Sun will make OpenSolaris financially viable, don't see how it will attract wider open source developers and don't see how an article painting over the problems a few reviewers had is going to solve anything?
No, but now you mention it, a few years ago I did see the look on a Sun engineer's face, who came in on not an inexpensive rate, when he saw the excruciatingly expensive UltraSparc IV running Solaris get totally creamed away by a factor of 4 (pystones) by a very dusty 1.4GHz desktop Athlon machine when running a Python and Zope site - after Python had been recompiled in Forte by him :-). Silence.......
[The GNU portion of Solaris's /usr/sfw/bin directory is still pretty spartan to this day.]
My employer wasn't amused either, especially after my standard response (and that of the Python developers) to our Solaris enthusiast was to just use Linux and x86 if you were using open source software. The Sun engineer babbled something about GCC not being production ready, SPARC being more solid and production ready than x86 and Linux being a poor Unix clone, or some line like that. He was never seen again.
I suppose I just find it a bit sad that that attitude hasn't changed, nor has Sun really changed anything around Solaris as a response, many years after that experience and three years after OpenSolaris's inception. After all that teeth pulling, I just find it daft when Sun says "It's just like Linux and open source!" when it isn't, and when it gets reviewed someone writes a response that says "Actually, you're wrong, I edited these files to get it working and you should have reviewed this cool new thing instead".
Reverse psychology mate ;-). This post definitely isn't normal, nor has it been implied that Solaris is 'evil' anywhere. What's been written is what's been written, nothing more. The Sun engineer believed I had something personal against him and Solaris as well for some reason. Must be something in the water ;-).
Member since:2005-07-07
No, but now you mention it, a few years ago I did see the look on a Sun engineer's face, who came in on not an inexpensive rate, when he saw the excruciatingly expensive UltraSparc IV running Solaris get totally creamed away by a factor of 4 (pystones) by a very dusty 1.4GHz desktop Athlon machine when running a Python and Zope site - after Python had been recompiled in Forte by him :-). Silence.......
Erm Sun sells the latest and greatest AMD and Intel processor based systems with linux, windows or Solaris that are far better engineered than the competitors.
Talk about stupid trolls.
Bashing Sun for only selling SPARC is so stupid its not even funny.
Member since:2005-07-08
Why does this sound similar to the tale I was told by a RedHat sales droid about an application that ran poorly on a SunFire 6800, but magically ran better on 10 dual CPU x86 boxes running RHEL?
The devil is in the details, so how about providing some details instead of just telling us a story. There had to be a reason for the poor performance and I would hope that you were running some sort of monitoring tools to capture some useful information.
I just don't buy "the performance sucked until I ran it on this" nonsense.
Member since:2005-11-14
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2006-01-19
I think the author hit all of the major points where things are "a little weird" in the initial release.
One thing that I did think was cool was how it snapshots the root volume immediately after the install, automatically, so you can roll back to the "pristine" state if you want to.
I really like the default theme, much more than, say, Ubuntu (which isn't ugly either).
The use of IOzone reminds me; I recently had a chance to use the latest version of Sun's Filebench, on Linux no less. It's a great tool. Early versions were kind of bleeding edge and hard to get going on anything but Solaris, but that seems fixed.
Nothing like a multithreaded Postmark workload to bring a 100 MB/s sequential array down to 1.8 MB/s effective throughput 
Member since:2006-07-14
Glad to hear you like FileBench. I'll note that it is now included by default with OpenSolaris at /usr/benchmarks/filebench.
I'm actually in the process of integrating some Linux changes submitted by Richard McDougall. OpenSolaris, Linux, and OSX are our three main platforms right now, and we want them all to be reliable.
For those not familiar, check out:
http://www.solarisinternals.com/wiki/index.php/FileBench
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:2006-05-09
I am not a system admin at all , but I liked your article too...
There is no comparison between an article written for some people that is dedicated to write articles and an article written for technical people that grew and learned some stuff based on his own experience; the later is richer because it destilates wisdom.
Congrats!
Member since:2005-07-08
Thanks. Forget that I am a system administrator and I have been doing it for almost 9 years. I just find it amazing that people read reviews that are nothing more than a rehash of the Release Notes and think they are great.
To me a review is where the author actually takes the subject of the review out for a test drive and finds out what works and what doesn't, and writes what he or she experiences during the review process. But I have been wrong before ....
Member since:2007-03-30
Yeah I am surprised but it is actually decent.
The part about changing the shell and the role is golden. I've read the opensolaris forum and have never seen this tip:
rolemod -K type=normal root
Once that is done, using usermod -s, you can change the shell for root to the desired shell.
Member since:2005-07-08
The commands needed were not together, first I used the rolemod command as described here:
http://dlc.sun.com/osol/docs/content/IPS/login.html
Then it is simply a matter of using usermod to change the shell for root. I am actually surprised that Sun didn't have instructions on how to do this, or maybe they figured nobody would want to change it.
Member since:
2006-06-23
Member since:2005-07-08
Why it works for me and doesn't for others is becuase I build systems with hardware that is supported by all operating systems. I can install any flavor of Linux, Solaris and Windows on the same machine becuase I bought hardware that supports all of the operating systems I just mentioned. The exception to this is the laptop which I pointed out in the article, which had hardware I knew was not supported.
Where I have the disconnect with people who complain about hardware support is why they buy hardware that doesn't work with the OS they want to use and then complain that the OS doesn't support it. If the user cannot read the HCL for the operating systems they intend to install on their machine and later find out that something doesn't work is not the fault of the OS, it is the fault of the user.
Member since:2006-06-23
"Where I have the disconnect with people who complain about hardware support is why they buy hardware that doesn't work with the OS"
When someone was buying his computer 2 or 3 years ago he didn't know if he will try Solaris (or BSD, Linux, whatever) or not.
BTW. OpenSolaris doesn't support my USB mouse which is supposed to work out of the box (and yes, I know how to configure mouse).
Member since:2005-07-08
The hardware I have used to test OpenSolaris is several years old, both have ATI video cards. The only "recent" piece of hardware is the Intel Pro/1000 NIC in the Pentium IV box. I have been able to do it by purchasing quality components that are supported by multiple operating systems, so yes you can.
In regards to the USB mouse problem, that has been hit and miss. Several people here have mentioned having mouse issues, I haven't experienced that problem or I would have mentioned it.
Member since:2006-01-19
I think that's unfair. Look at it this way, would you rather hear from someone who actually knows what he is talking about, or someone who just says, "Well, it's not like what I am used to. What's wrong with those fools at Sun, why can't they just be like {insert fav os here}" ?
Member since:2005-07-08
That's not the point some people try to portray here, it is far easier to attempt to make someone out a jerk rather than admit that the author may actually be right.
I have been using Solaris x86 for 10 years, so I know what hardware works. And why Solaris x86, Solaris Express and OpenSolaris works flawlessly on my hardware is because I bought supported hardware and didn't try to use things not on the HCL. I guess for some that is a hard pill to swallow.
Member since:2006-05-13
I have SunOS 4.1.4 original media here, as well as a Sparcstation 2 4/75, and even a Sparcstation 20 with 4xCPU config.
I have an Ultra 80 as well.
You can't roll back the clock as far as I can.
About 2 years ago, for nostalgia, I fitted a 50 Pin 18GB Seagate (ST318418N , the "original" Barracuda 36-ES2) into the 4/75.
Lets not try an assail people for being noobs because they complain. You might be suprised.
Member since:
2006-03-20
Member since:2005-07-08
Member since:
2006-05-13
As a solaris admin, this has been a bad experience.
I've been routinely breaking ZFS with SunVTS 6.4 and 7 when combined with other loads. First they were panics, a few files becoming locked such that the OS needed rebooting, and other misc. things.
2008.05, as a person accustomed to Solaris, is simply not an option and never will likely be an option to Solaris 10. This new layout is more of a reason to move over to Linux, not less.
The installer has taken away a lot of options, the X-server didn't work correctly, had to use the vesa driver, the kernel itself seems to be improved but the userland is simply a terrible mashup.
A lot of bundled applications dont work anymore, a lot of applications that used to be bundled are gone, I dont understand the motivation for most of the changes, Solaris 10u5 is clearly more usable, and 2008.05 is certainly not useful for production.
I hope Sun doubles back and focuses on keep Solaris 10 alive for a long, long time. I would consider solaris 10 primary, this new stuff secondary. Its really untenable.
I also think that Sun needs to get megaraid_sas or mfi into Solaris 10 and 2008.05 (not that it matters to me) as soon as possible.
If it weren't for the nice looking future zfs has (its a good effort, no doubt), and the file system snapshots (fssnap) and great volume management from disk suite to zfs, I would jump over to CentOS or an other sustained linux today. (I think dumping, snapshotting and LVM are rather not-so-good on Linux).
Sun needs to hunker down and keep Solaris 10 going as a first class project.
Also, Sun, please, for the love of all that is holy, please include javaws and the browser plugin for 64-bit Linux. Please, pretty please with sugar on top. Its been 3+ years now.
Member since:2005-07-08
On what hardware are you having trouble with ZFS? And why are you running SunVTS on it? If you are trying to stress the filesystem I would use iozone.
The reason why the OpenSolaris installer took away options is because inexperienced users were complaining to Sun about the installation being too difficult and having to make too many decisions.
What bundled applications are you talking about? Specifics are nice.
And why should Sun write a driver for an AMI device? If AMI wants to support Solaris, then maybe AMI needs to talk to Sun about driver support for their hardware. It simply isn't Sun's problem.
Member since:2006-05-13
On what hardware are you having trouble with ZFS? And why are you running SunVTS on it? If you are trying to stress the filesystem I would use iozone.
The reason why the OpenSolaris installer took away options is because inexperienced users were complaining to Sun about the installation being too difficult and having to make too many decisions.
What bundled applications are you talking about? Specifics are nice.
And why should Sun write a driver for an AMI device? If AMI wants to support Solaris, then maybe AMI needs to talk to Sun about driver support for their hardware. It simply isn't Sun's problem.
Warning, seems I've been accosted by a Sun apologist... (Note, I've been using Solaris / SunOS since 4.1.4 (I have original media)).
#1 Thumper is the hardware.
#2 Don't tell me how to stress my boxes. Solaris doesnt fail the stress test with UFS, but it does with ZFS, so what the hell does that have to do with IOZONE? I know how to break file systems, thank you, I dont need you to tell me how.
#3 Ok, let me come up with a list for you, do you want it in PDF, PS, HTML, let me know. Since I have to convince you...
#4 Yes, it is. You see, that driver is needed by a lot of hardware. A nice person made an mfi driver, and made it open source/BSD license. Sun's ridiculous bureaucracy can't get the stuff together to choose either LSI's existing and working megaraid_sas driver (it doesnt work so well under load). So between Sun and LSI, we have poor support for megaraid_sas. That hurts sun, so your pro-Sun attitude would be to go an try and get them to close on this LONG standing issue, not admonish people for needing the driver.
Oh yeah megaraid sas works on:
FreeBSD, Linux 2.4 with lots of patches, Linux 2.6, RHEL, FreeBSD, Windows 2000,XP,2003,Vista (64 and 32 bit), etc.
#5 If sun actually thinks people who couldn't install Solaris 10 and before will suddenly use Solaris 2008.05, you are on crack. Sorry. And sun POed the loyal base. I know no long time Solaris admins who are happy with this.
No answer or snarky comment about the improper implementation of the Sun 64 bit JDK/JRE, no way to blame me for that?
Oh, and I have an active support contract and have patched per support to try and fix the ZFS issues. No go.
You have to say to yourself, I buy Sun product, I am not the enemy. I pay Sun money, please, dont assail me, the customer, for simply trying to tell Sun how to stay on target.
Or go take on Linux head on, and pretend you'll usurp Ubuntu with Solaris 2008.05 and dash the hopes of CentOS with over 10,000,000 live systems going to the yum mirrors.
We'll see how that worked out, just like taking on Microsoft did.
Member since:2005-07-07
Warning, seems I've been accosted by a Sun apologist... (Note, I've been using Solaris / SunOS since 4.1.4 (I have original media)).
#1 Thumper is the hardware.
#2 Don't tell me how to stress my boxes. Solaris doesnt fail the stress test with UFS, but it does with ZFS, so what the hell does that have to do with IOZONE? I know how to break file systems, thank you, I dont need you to tell me how.
Right. SunVTS should not crash the OS.
#5 If sun actually thinks people who couldn't install Solaris 10 and before will suddenly use Solaris 2008.05, you are on crack. Sorry. And sun POed the loyal base. I know no long time Solaris admins who are happy with this.
OpenSolaris 2008.05 is not currently meant to replace Solaris 10 in the enterprise.
Eventually when OpenSolaris code is stable enough it will be made Solaris whatever. May be you should reserve judgment until whatever release after Solaris 10 based on OpenSolaris is released.
Are you having problems with ZFS on Solaris 10 or OpenSolaris2008.05?
What type of OpenSolaris Support contract do you have? What bugs have you filed for the issues? Can you point to the bugs that your have filed or have uncovered in OpenSolaris2008.05?
Member since:2008-06-05