1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

RIP OpenSolaris?

Discussion in 'Other Operating Systems' started by Hodge, Aug 9, 2010.

  1. Hodge

    Hodge Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2005
    Messages:
    48
    Location:
    Chatswood
    Hey Guys,

    I was trolling the forums looking at ZFS posts today as I want to setup a new 8TB file server.

    I was convinced I was going to go with OpenSolaris but then I found this:

    http://blogs.computerworld.com/16550/rip_opensolaris

    Now I think I'm going to have to lean more in the direction of mdadm + xfs.

    Thoughts?
     
  2. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,304
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I know a lot of big shops that are still rolling out OpenSolaris today for file servers and NAS units. It doesn't seem to be slowing people down who want good storage management software for $0.

    Plus there's always Illumos.
     
  3. thorsburgh

    thorsburgh (Banned or Deleted)

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2009
    Messages:
    10
    Don't the *BSD's have full ZFS support now ?
     
  4. Mad Mike

    Mad Mike Member

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2001
    Messages:
    780
    Location:
    Melbourne
    The writings on the wall but its not a done deal yet.
     
  5. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    There's been a bunch of discussion about it here (the thread name has only recently changed from an opensolaris related one)
     
  6. J-C90

    J-C90 Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2010
    Messages:
    293
    Location:
    VM01
    I just installed an OpenSolaris-ZFS fileserver. I figure if OpenSolaris is no longer, I can just install Illumos, FeeBSD, or any other ZFS supporting OS and import the ZFS pool. After all it was ZFS I was after - not specifically OpenSolaris.

    I'm keeping an eye on Illumos. I've been a big fan of Centos after RedHat went the same way.
     
  7. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,304
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Which is specifically why ZFS is CDDL (or alternatively, why the CDDL is GPL-incompatible). Sun knew it was their only defence from getting ZFS borged into Linux.
     
  8. cleary

    cleary Mental in the Face

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2003
    Messages:
    4,243
    Location:
    Griffith NSW
    RedHat's business model is in no way comparable to what's going on here - RH are a true "software as a service" provider. Their source code is fully open, they support a downstream "free" distro (fedora), and they sell service agreements for their core product RedHat Linux, whose source code is freely available, and leveraged by the CentOS distro.

    This is a harmonious and open relationship not a poisonous and obfuscated one.
     
  9. stmok

    stmok Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Messages:
    8,882
    Location:
    Sydney
    Last edited: Aug 14, 2010
  10. doodz

    doodz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,155
    Location:
    Sydney
    For me being dead doesn't matter at all. My fs is working fine and I can expand it easily without any new mobos or hardware.

    So as long as it keeps working osol is still good.
     
  11. sub.mesa

    sub.mesa Member

    Joined:
    Jun 23, 2010
    Messages:
    271
    Location:
    Europe
    Not at all! FreeBSD tracks the stable branch of ZFS as released by Solaris, as i understand. So you have:

    - Solaris: ZFS v15
    - FreeBSD 8.0: ZFS v13
    - FreeBSD 8.1: ZFS v14
    - FreeBSD 9-CURRENT: ZFS v15

    So the latest stable ZFS version is already in FreeBSD - though 9-CURRENT is a development branch not suited for production usage. A release of 9.0 is also likely at least half a year away. But there is work going on at porting newer versions of ZFS, including de-duplication support, which is already working in some branches, perforce i believe.

    The real questions, are:
    - will Oracle continue to release ZFS source code as CDDL? (i believe they said they would)
    - will ZFS still be actively developed upon? (less likely with the news of OpenSolaris)
    - will newer versions of ZFS (v26) be included in future Solaris releases and on what timescale?
    - when will FreeBSD incorporate v26 and when will FreeBSD 9.0 be released?
    - and last but not least: will ZFS fork into a separate project, maintained by the open source community?
     
  12. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,304
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Reading the leaked memo, it appears they will continue using the CDDL for all Solaris components, however they won't release source to the public/community for a specific amount of time between when the release of their commercial version.

    What that "specific amount of time" is, I don't know. But quite frankly that sort of attitude stinks.

    While normally I'd just ignore ZFS and wait for BtrFS instead, it brings me no joy to know both are being developed in majority by Oracle.
     
  13. stmok

    stmok Member

    Joined:
    Jul 24, 2001
    Messages:
    8,882
    Location:
    Sydney
  14. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,304
    Location:
    Brisbane
    ZOMG long term planning. Crazy concept. :)

    Yes, this recent Oracle/Google thing (and more to the point the fact that Sun actively advertised the possibility of suing Google as a plus for Oracle to buy them) is a worry.

    Oracle continue to prove they are out to harm both open source and the larger tech industry yet again. Good corporate citizens, they are not.
     
  15. doodz

    doodz Member

    Joined:
    Nov 6, 2002
    Messages:
    5,155
    Location:
    Sydney
    I dont see any changes or anything going wrong with my file server running this OS. Currently it works so No need for patches or bugs fixes.

    Well for me anyways...
     
  16. Crinos

    Crinos Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,027
    Location:
    Tasmania
    I hope you don't work in IT.
     
  17. foxmulder881

    foxmulder881 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2004
    Messages:
    5,884
    Location:
    Gold Coast, QLD OS:Linux
    Actually he sounds like my boss. He's still running about 8 systems in his workshop with DOS. No kidding.
     
  18. grs1961

    grs1961 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2005
    Messages:
    530
    Location:
    Melbourne
    Well, if he did work in IT he'd have a support contract for the boxen, non?
     
  19. elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    46,304
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Have you ever rung a vendor and told them you have an issue with a "boxen"? Their first question always is "what patch level are you on?".

    Whether it's OS, drivers, firmware or something else, invariably most of them will tell you to bugger off unless you have the latest patches on your system. Only when you can reproduce the issue on the latest version of the software will they assist.

    And beyond that, even with "unsupported" systems, you still want them to be patchable in the name of security. Functionality is only half the picture.
     
  20. Crinos

    Crinos Member

    Joined:
    Jul 1, 2002
    Messages:
    4,027
    Location:
    Tasmania
    Half of our POTS phone system(not my area) runs on those blue bubbly iMacs still, in Filemaker Pro databases, because the guy that built it left about 3 years ago and no-one really knows how it all links together :( I wish I was kidding...

    I think elvis has this covered. You mustn't work in IT either if you think a vendor won't force you to install the latest patch regardless of whether it is even vaguely related to the issue. :p Heaven forbid you install a Linux distro on your laptop either, because if your graphics chip implodes, they'll most likely tell you to try reinstalling Windows from the recovery disk/partition before repairing it :wired:

    One of my colleagues had a SAN running firmware v5.2. In order to fix an urgent problem, he had to patch to the latest stable version. So, his weekend involved something like patching 5.2->5.9->6.1->6.9->7.4->7.8 because it was running the firmware it was originally installed with 4 years ago. Just to punish slow patchers, they NEVER make it cumulative... they always force at least 3 intermediate updates to get to the latest version if you fall behind ;)

    But back on topic.

    It's a damn shame, but utterly predictable what Oracle is doing with Sun products. Having another ripper of a competitor to Linux/BSDs in the open source OS space was exciting, because it really keeps things moving in terms of innovation. Oracle however still pushes on with it's old school world domination strategy("own everything and sue everyone else"), and in the process, destroys a really great thing(or things... MySQL next... Java and OpenSolaris already being screwed). Screw Oracle...
     
    Last edited: Aug 16, 2010

Share This Page

Advertisement: