We all agree that ZFS is better today, but you are claiming that this would never change. You are claiming facts like:
"Linux is really bad as a Large Enterprise server. It is not because of the bad filesystems, but because of limitations in the Linux kernel"
You don't now how linux will evolve in the future.
You point as an absolute true true some consultant oppinions. Eventhough there are kernel / FS devs who point the opposite. If plp show you this the article is just wrong, and ovbiously your 2008 articles are all true, and will remain true forever.
You are not showing academic papers you are shoing us magazine articles.
Someone like that doesn't have PhD in math, as much you have PhD in narcissism.Do you know enough math to understand what this means? It means EXPONENTIAL GROWTH, the same as Moore's law. And if you dont know theory about asymptotics, let me tell you. Exponential growth is a very bad thing, it grows extremely fast. It actually, grows exponentially.
Why am I wasting time pointing out errors in their juvenile reasonings?
I, the "person that dont know math", will lecture you on math and formulas.
"128 bitness in a filesystem is just plain silly in 2010" - Wrong. I hope I taught you something today.
Next time, before you claim someone dont know arithmetic, I suggest you checkup your own arguments first. Maybe he has a PhD in math?
Then, it seems you don't know if he lied.To lie is to state something that one knows to be false or that one does not honestly believe to be true with the intention that a person will take it for the truth.
You don't only quote others, but you're saying things yourself.Lets get back to my question. What is FUD to you? A linux criticizer, is he FUDing? According to wikipedia, a FUDer is someone who lies and makes things up. Why do you imply I lie? I do not. I only quote others.
Oh, you gave links to FUD to backup your claims. By linking to FUD aren't you FUDing? By saying things and not backing them up, aren't you FUDing?FUD techniques may be crude and simple, as in claiming "I read a paper by a Harvard professor that shows you are wrong regarding subject XXX", but the paper does not exist. (Were the paper to exist then it would not be FUD but valid criticism.)
It says Solaris guys and Bonwick FUD.
It also says Sun was a big coward.And let it not be missed how much Sun enjoys attacking it's competition via blogs, so they don't have to make any official statements in this area or stand behind what they say in any official capacity. And that, my friends, makes for one big coward of a company.
You didn't backup your statements by research papers, white papers, official benchmarks and interviews you have posted (I'm not sure you posted all of these, but ok). Afaik those interviews are just personal opinions. I see nothing in papers you have posted which backups your statements. To backup your statements you showed some articles which are likely to be marketing bull (and which aren't papers) and some benchmarks made by sun or sun related sites, people etc. so likely biased and which doesn't count as a objective benchmarks. However, sun FUDs.I understand you get upset when I criticize Linux, by posting research papers, white papers, official benchmarks, interviews with Linux developers, etc - that is ok.
This is the most credible link in my opinion. More credible then links from sun, solaris devs etc. So, prove me wrong.This is much better, kraftman. You post links! However, you should preferably post credible links.
One more thing. To dispel your claims/FUD Kebbabert nobody has to provide you links. It's enough to provide some counter arguments. Even if you don't agree with them, you should consider you can't proof you're right or someone else's not. Otherwise, it's a pure trolling and FUDing. As far you only proved some people said what they said, so personal opinions and FUD. That's all.
Kebabbert has started half a dozen never-ending troll fests this week. Every time you counter one of his points, he responds with about 50 new ones in a series of responses that no one has the time to respond to, and half of them just repeat exactly what you had just proved wrong.
What does it take to bring down the ban-hammer around here?
Somewhere in the sand a line needs to be drawn; I think plenty here should be booted for being clinically retarded.
Yeah, it was a rhetorical question. His behavior is some of the worst I've seen on this site, though.
We all really just need to ignore him, it's obvious he feeds on the attention he's getting.
"Opinions are never wrong. Facts can be wrong." You are free to have any opinion you want. Actually, on another forum there was someone that bashed Solaris and Solaris supporters started a heated discussion - but I defended him! I said "let him be, let he say what he wants". But when that guy said wrong things about Solaris, I corrected him. For instance, he said "ZFS requires several GB just to boot, the memory foot print is huge". Which is wrong, so I corrected him.
Also, I react when people say "ZFS is slow. Muhahahhaha". Because that is not true. It can give huge performance, as I have shown.
The thing is, if people lie about ZFS, Solaris or spread FUD or whatever - then I react.
If people hate Solaris or ZFS, or whatever - I dont care. I dont react. I would be silent and do not post here. People are free to have any opinion. I just react to wrong things.
I would not object to this: "I hate Solaris. I dont like it"
To this I would react: "I heard that Solaris is dead, and that ZFS have no advantaqes over other filesystems". First of all, Solaris is not dead. Just this week, HP and Dell got new contracts from Oracle, where they sell Solaris on their servers. It would not happen if Solaris was dead. Second, ZFS protects your data.
I just react to all this FUD that is going on here. I try to stop FUD. I dont see anything wrong doing that?
No, I can write whatever I want, it can be lies. But, the researchers that I link to, says something. And maybe the sysadmins trust the researchers. Of course, I dont expect sysadmins to read this site, but I need to get rid of misconceptions about ZFS. To tell people how things really are.You really believe that any sysadmin of huge system is reading phoronix forum and take whatever you are writing here as irrefutable true?
This is interesting. If you had read my links on this, you would have seen the following:I also do care about data safety. The fact is that for 12 years of using many OSes and many FSes i didn't loose any data.
There is very small chance you corrupt your data. Maybe a few bits in every TB you read, is wrong. Long ago, the largest drive was 1GB. So it took very long time before you read 1TB, so you almost never saw corrupted bits. The data was too small. But now, the discs are big. And raids are bigger. For instance, Greenplum database solution, scans 1TB data each 15 minutes. This means, every 15 min, they face corrupted bits. Today it is not uncommon to have TB big raid for a home user. It is possible to have TB raids today, and then you will surely read corrupt bits. The larger raids, the more corrupted bits you will face. If you have a really large raid, say 10TB, there are several files that are corrupted. (This is the reason Greenplum is using ZFS too). People just dont know this about data corruption. And I tell them: "No, you dont understand. Things are like this actually:...."
It is? Then I stop say so. How do you do a snapshot in linux? And, downgrading package, does it always work? Never problems?What? I'ts very easy to fix Linux without reinstalling it, ie. by downgrading package that cause error. You could also have a snapshot of working Linux, it's also not hard work.
No problemo, man!Then forgive me my ignorance because i red only few of last pages, and from that point of view you looked like attacker, forgive me.