Page 2 of 6 FirstFirst 1234 ... LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 52

Thread: Oracle Plans To Bring DTrace To Linux

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Yfrwlf View Post
    Stop calling software "technology". Dtrace is a program. You act as if it's something super amazingly special and that it'd be impossible for anyone else to duplicate it (like strace?).

    kthnx
    Ok, "technology" is not the correct word, you are right on this.

    However, everybody is copying or porting Solaris DTrace. IBM AIX has a copy, called ProbeVue. FreeBSD has ported DTrace. Mac OS X has ported DTrace. Linux has several DTrace copies - none of them good as the original. Just like ZFS - everybody wants it and has ported it, or copying it: BTRFS.

    So, yes the copies are immature and inferior. It is difficult to reinvent superior software as ZFS, or DTrace or Containers or CrossBow or SMF or... - because we see that still today, after many years, BTRFS is not functioning well. Ktrace is not functioning well. etc. All the copies are not functioning well. The ports are functioning well: ZFS in FreeBSD and DTrace in Mac OS X - all works well.

    This proves it is difficult to copy Solaris tech, it is so new and unique. It is not just like, a polished version of a software, no they are totally different animal and does not look like anything else on the market. For instance, DTrace was totally unique and revolutionary when it showed up and everybody was baffled. Several Linux devs switched to OpenSolaris just to get DTrace.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Finland
    Posts
    18

    Default

    https://lwn.net/Articles/461660/

    Inside of Oracle, we've decided to make btrfs the default filesystem for
    Oracle Linux. This is going into beta now and we'll increase our usage
    of btrfs in production over the next four to six months. This is a
    really big step forward, but it doesn't cover btrfs in database
    workloads (since we recommend asm for that outside of the filesystem).

    What this means is that absolutely cannot move forward without btrfsck.
    RH, Fujitsu, SUSE and others have spent a huge amount of time on the filesystem
    and it is clearly time to start putting it into customer hands.
    I've been using btrfs like 4 months now and it works fine(for me). I have raid10 on four drives. My root is on ext4, but I am going to change it this year. I don't have critical data, so I don't give a shit if everything goes sideways. It's not ready for serious bussiness use or if you have critical data. For normal desktop usage it's quite fine. As always backups are your best friend

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    845

    Default

    Seems like Oracle is all but giving up on Solaris as their efforts seem firmly focused on their 'unbreakable' Linux offering, even going so far as to port what has been described as key advantages of Solaris.

    Either that or they feel their Linux solution needs all the ammo it can get in order to compete with Red Hat.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by XorEaxEax View Post
    Seems like Oracle is all but giving up on Solaris as their efforts seem firmly focused on their 'unbreakable' Linux offering, even going so far as to port what has been described as key advantages of Solaris.

    Either that or they feel their Linux solution needs all the ammo it can get in order to compete with Red Hat.
    Oracle has ramped up engineering efforts on Solaris and SPARC. Larry himself said that he considers "Solaris is for highend". The new SPARC servers have several world performance records recently. Solaris 11 has tons of new functionality and innovations. The new Solaris servers will have 16.384 threads, that is far more than anyone else ever had.

    More probably, Larry wants his Linux distro to be the new RedHat, and he is trying to crush RedHat by using hot cool Solaris tech. On Linux side, he needs to crush RedHat. On Unix side, he needs to crush IBM AIX and HP UX.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zetbo View Post
    https://lwn.net/Articles/461660/



    I've been using btrfs like 4 months now and it works fine(for me). I have raid10 on four drives. My root is on ext4, but I am going to change it this year. I don't have critical data, so I don't give a shit if everything goes sideways. It's not ready for serious bussiness use or if you have critical data. For normal desktop usage it's quite fine. As always backups are your best friend
    ZFS is almost 10 years old, and still has bugs. There are Enterprise sysadmins that does not allow ZFS into their server halls, because ZFS is too new.

    BTRFS v1.0 is still far away. When v1.0 will be released, no one will use it in production. After several years it will be slowly let into the server halls. 10 years after, BTRFS still will not be trusted.

    But of course, for home use BTRFS would be fine.

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    This proves it is difficult to copy Solaris tech, it is so new and unique. It is not just like, a polished version of a software, no they are totally different animal and does not look like anything else on the market. For instance, DTrace was totally unique and revolutionary when it showed up and everybody was baffled. Several Linux devs switched to OpenSolaris just to get DTrace.
    Or this proves it's not interesting, incompatible or the code is a mess. As for Solaris "tech" there's nothing interesting except zfs. Oracle's moves suggests they're really going to kill Solaris and focus on Linux.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Posts
    55

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Most people agree that BTRFS is a ZFS copy, but less mature. Maybe 3-5 years from now, BTRFS will be released as v1.0. But ZFS development has carried on even further, so BTRFS will still lag behind ZFS. Do you also suggest that Oracle should kill ZFS, and help out with BTRFS instead? To decrease fragmentation? ZFS is superior to BTRFS, much more mature and used in Enterprise production today. BTRFS is a copy. Why kill the original, and help out with the copy instead?

    The same with Solaris containers. IBM has also copied Solaris containers, and are calling it WPAR(?). If Linux has lot of immature filesystems or lot of immature container implementations - why kill the original and help out with a copy? Wouldn't it be better if Linux killed all immature alpha phase containers and instead helped out with the original superior ZFS and Solaris Containers?
    Actually I haven't talked to anybody who thinks btrfs is a zfs clone, but be that as it may, I'm not telling oracle to discontinue zfs, it's their money to spend. The license is incompatible with GPL so ZFS on linux is a bit problematic, but if they want to work on that issue, more power to them. I just don't think anybody is pining away for ZFS on linux.

    But to the main point - did you seriously think Sun invented OS level virtualization? Linux containers first appeared in 2001, before Solaris zones. Didn't this technology already exist in the mainframe world, anyway? IMHO Solaris zones are a watered down version of linux containers. Even the free Openvz, out of the box, has features that solaris zones lack - like live migration of a running instance from one physical host to another with no outage.

    What I'm saying is, Linux already has excellent container options, why spend resources producing an inferior, OEL only version of containers? I predict they will go nowhere.

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kraftman View Post
    Or this proves it's not interesting,
    Well, lot of Solaris are copied by Linux devs. Why would the Linux hackers copy Solaris tech, if it not were interesting? Thus, you are wrong.

    incompatible
    Incompatible with what? ZFS and BTRFS are not compatible, but everyone that knows something about the subject agrees that BTRFS is a ZFS wanna-be. Of course the Linux copies are not compatible - but they dont work well and are inferior. It does not matter if they are incompatible, they are copies. For instance, C# is a copy of Java, but they are incompatible, still C# is a copy of Java.

    or the code is a mess.
    Do you think this could be the reason why the Linux copies dont work well? For instance, BTRFS needs a "fsck" similar tool. ZFS does not need such a tool, because of ZFS design. So you mean that the reason BTRFS is not as good as ZFS, is because the BTRFS code is a mess? Maybe. I know that several Linux kernel hackers have said that the Linux code is a mess. Do you want to see the links, when they say that?

    As for Solaris "tech" there's nothing interesting except zfs.
    If there was nothing interesting except ZFS, why would Linux kernel devs copy DTrace and Containers and probably lot of other things as well? Do you deny that Linux kernel developers are copying DTrace and Containers? In Solaris 10 there was lot of new hot tech; ZFS, DTrace, Containers being the hottest. Linux kernel developers are copying all of these. This shows they are interested.

    Why dont Linux developers invent something really cool that others want to copy? I have never heard of any Linux tech that is worth copying. Have anyone heard of cool Linux tech that everone wants? No? Linux developers are just copy cats. Also, FreeBSD users tend to agree with this. I would like to see the Linux developers invent something really awesome that Solaris and AIX would be copying, then I would change my view of Linux developers as copy cats. Until now, they are actually copy cats, they are copying more than they give back to other OSes. Do they give back anything at all?

    Oracle's moves suggests they're really going to kill Solaris and focus on Linux.
    Hardly. Larry Ellison, who founded Oracle, said that Solaris will be for high end. This means that Linux will be for the rest, middle end and low end. He also said that he loves Linux but it is not as mature as Solaris, hence, Linux is immature. Do you want to read the interview when he says so?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    418

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by david_lynch View Post
    Actually I haven't talked to anybody who thinks btrfs is a zfs clone,
    Cool. But there are also people that thinks that C# is NOT a clone of Java. As everyone knows, this is wrong. MS released a Java implementation called J++, But J++ and Java was not really compatible, there were some slight changes in J++. This allowed you to write programs that could not be run on Java, the famous MS strategy of "embrace extend and extinguish". Sun sued MS because MS is fragmenting Java. Sun won so MS stopped releasing J++. Some year later, MS released a new cool language running on a Virtual Machine - even though C# only runs on Windows. Back then, there was no point of running software on a VM, if you tied it to only one OS - because VMs were slow back then. And early version of C# were nearly identical to Java. But, I have talked to developers that dont think that C# is a Java clone. So probably there are people that dont know that BTRFS is a ZFS wanna be and heavily inspired by ZFS.

    But to the main point - did you seriously think Sun invented OS level virtualization?
    No, I dont think so. I have not claimed that. IBM did lot of virtualization tech, back in 1970 or earlier. But Solaris pioneered Containers, which IBM has copied. And now Linux is copying too.

    Linux containers first appeared in 2001, before Solaris zones.
    Oh yeah? Do you have links to back this claim up? IBM have copied Solaris Containers quite recently, and are calling it WPAR(?). If Solaris Containers were old and well known, why would IBM copy it just now? Something does not add up. Many considers IBM the King of virtualization and back then, everybody copied from IBM. Solaris also copied lot of virtualization tech from IBM. Everybody did. Now suddenly, the King copies from Solaris - why would they if Containers were old and well known? IBM has all virtualization tech, and now including Containers.

    Didn't this technology already exist in the mainframe world, anyway?
    No. Not containers. But Mainframe has for long had LPAR and other virtualization tech.

    IMHO Solaris zones are a watered down version of linux containers. Even the free Openvz, out of the box, has features that solaris zones lack - like live migration of a running instance from one physical host to another with no outage.
    So if BTRFS has one functionality that ZFS lack, then you claim that "ZFS is a watered down version of Linux BTRFS, because you can not do XXX on ZFS"? Hardly. Solaris Containers are rock sold and is a really cool idea that everybody copies. For instance, you can install other OSes into Solaris Containers, and run for instance, Linux. Can you install other OSes into Linux Containers? No, then I would say "Linux Containers are a watered down version fo Solaris containers, because it lack functionaliy YYY". Ths is not a valid argument. Just because a copy has another feature set than the original, does not make the copy superior. I bet Solaris containers have lot of functionality that Linux version does not have.

    What I'm saying is, Linux already has excellent container options, why spend resources producing an inferior, OEL only version of containers? I predict they will go nowhere.
    Apparently people do not agree with you. If Linux virtualization tech were superior, why copy from Solaris, just like everybody does? Maybe Solaris Containers are worth copying, even though Linux has umpteen different virtualization tech. This suggests that all the Linux options are not good, because they are still looking for a better solution.

  10. #20

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kebabbert View Post
    Well, lot of Solaris are copied by Linux devs. Why would the Linux hackers copy Solaris tech, if it not were interesting? Thus, you are wrong.
    Care to prove? As far I can see it's Solaris devs who copy from others and from Linux - like solaris cointainers which seems to be crappy Linux tech copy.

    If there was nothing interesting except ZFS, why would Linux kernel devs copy DTrace and Containers and probably lot of other things as well? Do you deny that Linux kernel developers are copying DTrace and Containers? In Solaris 10 there was lot of new hot tech; ZFS, DTrace, Containers being the hottest. Linux kernel developers are copying all of these. This shows they are interested.
    Cointainers are crap copied and crappied from Linux. SystemTap also seems to be better than dtrace. There's btrfs which isn't zfs copy, but it's a different file system.

    Hardly. Larry Ellison, who founded Oracle, said that Solaris will be for high end. This means that Linux will be for the rest, middle end and low end. He also said that he loves Linux but it is not as mature as Solaris, hence, Linux is immature. Do you want to read the interview when he says so?
    He said this quite long ago and it was just stupid PR talk. It seems Solaris isn't so interesting for Oracle. Solaris seems to be nearly dead compared to Linux and basing on Oracle's interests.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •