Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Solaris 11 Released

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the new-and-improved dept.

Cloud 224

angry tapir writes "Oracle has updated its Unix-based operating system Solaris, adding some features that would make the OS more suitable for running cloud deployments, as well as integrating it more tightly with other Oracle products. While not as widely known for its cloud software, Oracle has been marketing Solaris as a cloud-friendly OS. In Oracle's architecture, users can set up different partitions, called Zones, inside a Solaris implementation, which would allow different workloads to run simultaneously, each within their own environment, on a single machine."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Cloud hosting (4, Interesting)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007364)

I know it is the usual thing to hate on slashdot, but Solaris combined with cloud hosting works wonders for our company. It's generally much more easier to deploy than Linux based distros, and comes with extra performance. Our sites usually have a stable amount of traffic, but sometimes it peaks, and those are the times we really want the website to perform well. Solaris+Cloud hosting is perfect for that. As fallback, we have Azure, which also performs really good, but it requires extra work as it's different platform. But generally, scalable cloud hosting really is good for hosting big traffic sites.

Re:Cloud hosting (4, Interesting)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007550)

What platform are you running Solaris on? Last time I ran it on an x86 platform (which admittedly was over 6 years ago), performance under load was worse than a comparable Linux box. (at the time, I blamed it on the NIC drivers).

i thought the whole point of cloud servers was that when the load peaks, it's easy to spin up additional servers, so it doesn't really matter what the performance of any individual server is?

How is Azure a fallback for Solaris+Cloud hosting? If you have a Solaris cloud that is scalable and reliable, why do you need an Azure fallback?

But generally, scalable cloud hosting really is good for hosting big traffic sites.

But why is Solaris more suitable to having cloud hosted servers than Linux? While I can see why Solaris zones would make my own private cloud easier to implement, I can have a script spin up EC2 Linux instances on demand and have them serving traffic within minutes. Why would Solaris be any better at that?

Re:Cloud hosting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007580)

For starters it's better because you don't have to call it GNU/Solaris.

Re:Cloud hosting (2)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007598)

For starters it's better because you don't have to call it GNU/Solaris.

Oracle Solaris is better?

Re:Cloud hosting (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007728)

*anything* is better than having your product name hijacked by a toe-jam-eating hippie.

Re:Cloud hosting (3, Funny)

SlashV (1069110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007998)

"your product name"? Is that you Linus?

Re:Cloud hosting (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008090)

What platform are you running Solaris on? Last time I ran it on an x86 platform (which admittedly was over 6 years ago), performance under load was worse than a comparable Linux box. (at the time, I blamed it on the NIC drivers).

Worth checking out at least; works reasonably well in a VM (vmware-tools are available last I checked).

Generally I've found Solaris to be better under load that Linux (been using both for at least a decade). When things are light Linux may be more responsive, but I've found it gets bogged down when the going gets tough. On average I've experienced at least one live-lock a year with Linux, but have never with Solaris (even on an Sun Ultra 10 with a load avg of over 300 I could still get in and fix things). I also like the fact that by default Solaris doesn't overcommit memory, so the whole OOM Killer thing becomes moot (ran some Linux-based Perforce servers that this was a semi-regular problem).

I'm doing Linux sysadmin full time now, but do miss many small things from Solaris (kstat, good man pages), especially version 10+ (DTrace, ZFS).

To each his own.

i thought the whole point of cloud servers was that when the load peaks, it's easy to spin up additional servers, so it doesn't really matter what the performance of any individual server is?

The better each individual server performs, the less you have to pay for more of them.

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008678)

i thought the whole point of cloud servers was that when the load peaks, it's easy to spin up additional servers, so it doesn't really matter what the performance of any individual server is?

The better each individual server performs, the less you have to pay for more of them.

But at $1000/socket for Solaris), even an extra 50% performance benefit is lost in the licensing costs. (does Solaris really cost that much? That's the only price I could find out Oracle's website). A 2 socket X2270 Sunfire is around $3000 more than an equivalent Dell.

Re:Cloud hosting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008224)

My experience with Solaris and Linux is that Solaris has higher baseline requirements (memory and mhz) but once those were met, it was was much better under heavy loads than Linux. Of course, both Linux and hardware get better over time.

Re:Cloud hosting (2)

Bacon Bits (926911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008342)

If you have a Solaris cloud that is scalable and reliable, why do you need an Azure fallback?

This question, at least, is easy. There's no such thing as "too big to fail". If you ever have to start counting your nines on more than one hand or you have to start planning for century events, you might need to think about multiple redundant hosting. The hosting company could fail or be shut down by court order, or the hosting location could be hit by natural disaster, or there could be a catastrophic accident. What if the Asian slice of the global database you're mandated by law and by mission to have always available is located in Fukushima because the power supply was convenient?

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

hawguy (1600213) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008682)

If you have a Solaris cloud that is scalable and reliable, why do you need an Azure fallback?

This question, at least, is easy. There's no such thing as "too big to fail". If you ever have to start counting your nines on more than one hand or you have to start planning for century events, you might need to think about multiple redundant hosting. The hosting company could fail or be shut down by court order, or the hosting location could be hit by natural disaster, or there could be a catastrophic accident. What if the Asian slice of the global database you're mandated by law and by mission to have always available is located in Fukushima because the power supply was convenient?

I don't understand your answer. Solaris and Azure are not hosting providers, they are technologies. You can have geographical diversity with either one.

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

zbobet2012 (1025836) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007690)

[quote]But generally, scalable cloud hosting really is good for hosting big traffic sites.[/quote] No really big traffic site gets hosted "in the cloud" except for netflix... who doesn't actually use as much EC2 as they say they do. Its great for modestly small startups though.

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

nepka (2501324) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007754)

Actually, there's shitloads of big sites hosted on Amazon and other big platforms. On their last outage (which really doesn't happen often, compared to other solutions) they were named out. Look at the older stories here on slashdot regarding Amazon cloud.

Re:Cloud hosting (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008084)

Ummmm... what about iCloud? [yeah I know it's popular to hate on 'em but check out who runs it]

I agree completely (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007712)

Let me quote from an email that an associate of mine recently sent me on his experience with Oracle.

"Oracle Solaris Cloud leverages core skillsets and world-class synergy through teamwork to provide clients worldwide with robust, scalable, modern turnkey implementations of flexible, personalized, cutting-edge Internet-enabled ebusiness application product suite esolution architectures that accelerate response to customer and real-world market demands and reliably adapt to evolving technology needs, seamlessly and efficiently integrating and synchronizing with their existing legacy infrastructure, enhancing the sodomy-readiness capabilities of their ecommerce production environments across the enterprise while giving them a critical competitive advantage and taking them to the next level."

Re:I agree completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007862)

I agree, every company needs to seamlessly and efficiently integrate and synchronize with their existing legacy infrastructure and en--err, whah?

But hey it is Oracle, you are taking it there.

(captcha: mugging)

Re:I agree completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008318)

I'm not seeing any compelling value-add.

Re:I agree completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008398)

enhancing the sodomy-readiness capabilities

I saw what you did there.

Re:I agree completely (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008740)

You left out the most overused, meaningless business marketing buzzword of them all: "innovative".

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

monzie (729782) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007912)

Please define what you meant by "comes with extra performance".

Re:Cloud hosting (5, Funny)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008226)

Part of the price you pay covers a little pack of IOPS that comes in the box. If you go for a two year support deal they throw in a few MHz too.

Re:Cloud hosting (0, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008358)

Actually, Linux tends to be faster than Solaris even on SPARC hardware, let alone x86.

http://www.stdlib.net/~colmmacc/2006/04/13/more-ubuntu-on-t2000/

Re:Cloud hosting (2, Interesting)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008466)

I know it is the usual thing to hate on slashdot

No, it is usual for people who frequent slashdot to hate companies and products that have made some portion of their life miserable. The hate is not random.

Re:Cloud hosting (4, Insightful)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008806)

Nonsense. I've been watching people on slashdot trash things they know absolutely nothing about for something near a decade.

I come here for the ones that can call them out on it. :)

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008836)

Nonsense. I've been watching people on slashdot trash things they know absolutely nothing about for something near a decade.

I come here for the ones that can call them out on it. :)

Well in that case you may wish to find something more constructive to do, like watch reality TV. You'll find much more bitching there.

Re:Cloud hosting (1)

SomePgmr (2021234) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008964)

Nah, you learn a lot when folks who know what they're talking about come out of the woodwork.

Also, I'm not particularly interested in the end result of any argument over, "best hair product".

Re:Cloud hosting (5, Interesting)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008844)

Really than why don't they hate linux? After all as a linux admin my life was made hard by linux much more often than windows or Solaris. Tech is like choosing a car and saying I don't drive trucks trucks suck. Well it depends. Solaris/SPARC might be slow on single threaded apps but high concurrency they kick butt. They are a tractor trailer where as linux might be a Porche. Both are worth about the same but have different features and limitations. Best to use the right tool for the job rather than get all religious on means of delivery, techinical implementation, or one area of performance. I realize other vendors equipment might have it now but I seem to recall back in the day (not dinosaur era but maybe 1995) finding out that you could hot swap CPUs on a Sun box. That's crazy. Maybe other people can do that but it is typical of Solaris as a whole, it is very very rare that you need to restart a Solaris box usually if you do it is a 3rd party device manufacturer that causes the reboot (a FC card that just insists on restart because so crazy reason it doesn't work properly after being bounced in the OS for example). That is pretty cool stuff. Whether it is worth the money and relatively small user base/app base is up to the usage scenario.

What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (4, Insightful)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007416)

Given how much they've done negatively to OpenSolaris (taking it from developer-friendly to "we don't care how many people get compromised, we're not going to hand out security updates without a large-fee contract", Oracle's made it worse than AIX.

(made Solaris worse, that is) (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007436)

N/T

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (1)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007472)

AIX at least runs on decent hardware. SPARC sucked for years before the acquisition, and continuing to beat that particular dead horse seems unwise.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (2)

sethmeisterg (603174) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007832)

I don't think you've seen recent SPARC hardware, then.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (2, Interesting)

the linux geek (799780) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007890)

I think I have. I've seen that the "latest and greatest" SPARC64 VII+ still gets regularly spanked by Power7 and Itanium and even commodity systems in performance, despite being considerably more expensive - and I've seen vague roadmaps for the future of M-Series. I've seen that the T1/T2/T3 performance promises never really panned out (see: SPEC results vs the much cheaper Magny-Cours), and that the T4 has so far largely been hidden behind the veil of vague benchmark-fu while being far more expensive than its competitors.

What hardware have I been missing?

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008854)

Um, Sparc VII is more than two generations old (if you count the VIIfx and VIIIfx as distinct generations). and by "spanked" you mean on single-threaded performance (pro-tip, not what modern Sparcs have been designed for up until the new T4s, though Sparc64 still isn't).

The M9000 still holds the record for the most powerful single-node computer, so clearly, that one isn't being spanked either, not to mention its reason for existing is to beat the pants off of IBM mainframes on price/performance.

And the T4s are priced very favourably vis-a-vis comparable Power-based systems. And vague benchmarks how? Take a T3, fix it's most glaring shortcoming (single-threaded performance) by doubling the clock, and you have a T4, more or less.

But this is slashdot, we hate Sun and Oracle, and love IBM, so clearly everything IBM touches is leaps and bounds better, even, and especially when it isn;t.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (1)

sethstorm (512897) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008072)

That, and it has run on a wider range of IBM's own hardware versus Solaris and SPARC.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008150)

AIX at least runs on decent hardware. SPARC sucked for years before the acquisition, and continuing to beat that particular dead horse seems unwise.

I quite enjoyed using the T-series hardware, especially when combined with zones/containers. Certainly better than most of the Dell and IBM stuff I've dealt with. HP kit gives it a good runs for its money though.

Personally I like that the fact I don't need a bloody web browser to do most things with the OOB management on Sun/Oracle (SPARC) hardware. Having a proper serial console supported directly in hardware was/is an absolute joy IMHO. Trying to get Linux serial console takes all kinds of contortions as most modern distros assume a video console; this entails needing a web browser and various (IE/Java) plug-ins.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (2)

secolactico (519805) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007578)

Heck, they even restrict the driver downloads for Sun hardware.

Drivers... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007726)

...And firmware.

No ridiculously overpriced contract; no firmware updates.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007594)

"worse than AIX" wow, that is BAD!

"It used to be said [...] that AIX looks like one space alien
discovered Unix, and described it to another different space alien who
then implemented AIX. But their universal translators were broken and
they'd had to gesture a lot." (unknown attribution)

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (4, Interesting)

ralphart (70342) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007762)

Ever seen the Dementers in the Harry Potter films? Larry Ellison was the model. In terms of Corporate Evil, Oracle is the Prince of Fucking Darkness. They make Microsoft look like a bunch of panty-waists.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008392)

That is ironic, because in some ways, Solaris has stood still. 8 character usernames for example. AIX ships by default with those, but it isn't hard to change a setting to go up to 255 characters. Password authentication on AIX is also 8 characters, but can be easily changed. (AIX ships in the most compatible way possible unless installed out of the box with "secure by default" settings.)

Solaris 11 has some advances (root being a role, not a user), but AIX is neck and neck in other fields with LPARs and WPARs, partition mobility, RAM "compression" and other items. The only place where AIX isn't really competitive to Solaris is in the ZFS department (AIX really needs deduplication and a more featured filesystem than JFS2.)

Given a choice, because of the way Oracle has treated customers, I'd jump to POWER. IBM's hardware is just plain better than Oracle's on every single front.

Re:What Sun built in goodwill, Oracle destroys. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008808)

You can use longer usernames and passwords in Solaris, they just warn about greater than 8 characters in the name since 3rd party tools might assume an 8 character limit and break. Password hashing with mechanisms other than crypt are also supported (MD5, SHA256, SHA512).

AIX's userland is absolutely archaic. It's just awful. And getting anything to compile properly is a massive headache as well. Want to compile a Perl module? Then you'll need IBM's C compiler for AIX, because that's what Perl was compiled with. Oh, did we forget to mention it's not included, nor is it free? Solution: install a gcc-compiled version of Perl.

Basically, if it's not in the base OS, the Linux toolbox, or on bull freeware, then here be dragons. I swear IBM went out of their way to prevent any available open-source software from compiling properly without some kind of twiddling required.

Compare with Linux which has the best userland available and compiles pretty much everything available as a source tarball with minimal effort. Solaris being a close second with nearly every GNU tool you'd want available as a binary package on sunfreeware.com and I can't see why anyone would willingly choose AIX if they actually had to work with the OS on a daily basis.

8 char usernames (1)

Grifter (12763) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007426)

can you believe they are trying to impose 8 character user names???

And what's with the not being able to select packages on install... it's just one size fits all.

BAH!

Re:8 char usernames (1)

rnturn (11092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007484)

"...they are trying to impose 8 character user names"

That limit is in force on previous versions of Solaris, isn't it? I know I've encountered it in the past on UNIX variants available from various big-iron vendors.

Re:8 char usernames (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007604)

You can have longer than 8 character user names, but the characters after 8 are ignored. It's defined in limits.h as LOGNAME_MAX. It's an ABI restriction, hard-coded in several binary formats, NIS restriction, and UNIX interoperability issue. Another limit is the 32-bit character limit from POSIX, but that's been removed, I understand. Don't blame me--I'm just telling you.

Re:8 char usernames (3, Funny)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008120)

You can have longer than 8 character user names, but the characters after 8 are ignored. It's defined in limits.h as LOGNAME_MAX. It's an ABI restriction, hard-coded in several binary formats, NIS restriction, and UNIX interoperability issue. Another limit is the 32-bit character limit from POSIX, but that's been removed, I understand. Don't blame me--I'm just telling you.

Well tried, but I know its your fault!

Re:8 char usernames (4, Funny)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007680)

Jeez, only a complete loser would have an 8-character user name.

Re:8 char usernames (2)

chudnall (514856) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008142)

Tell me about it.

Re:8 char usernames (1)

DeathElk (883654) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008246)

You fellas sure ain't whistling Dixie.

Re:8 char usernames (2)

sconeu (64226) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008426)

8 chars? Why back in my day we had only 6! And we were glad to have them too! How else would be we able to tell between julia and julian without that sixth character?

And we had to walk fifteen miles to see the sysadmin to get the username, too. In a raging snowstorm! Uphill! Both ways!!!!

still no ZFS bp rewrite (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007452)

10 years and counting and still no ZFS bp rewrite implemented. For those that care, this presumably is required to implement such uninteresting things as vdev removal and defragmentation. And please, no defrag-denialists here... ZFS fragments like a cheap suit dipped into liquid nitrogen.

Zones (1)

MichaelJ (140077) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007462)

Zones have been around in Solaris 10 for years. They're very nice, btw.

Re:Zones (2)

rnturn (11092) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008454)

Ah... but these zones go to (Solaris) 11.

Re:Zones (1, Insightful)

spacey (741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008494)

They're OK... until you try to manage different (commercial) applications on them. When app 1 requires a kernel patch, well there's no real virtualization there - the zones still run the same kernel, so when app 2 requires a different, incompatible patch, you get the throw up your hands and become the IT that says "no".

These are old issues, but trying to sell zones as the end-all be-all, or as even much more interesting than a BSD jail, is bogus.

Let's get to real issues that this doesn't change: patch management is a nightmare on solaris. 11 hasn't changed this. The OS is waaaay overpriced vs. the competition, and very unsophisticated processes monitoring via smf (I honestly think they should have cut their losses and just used runit - most of the benefits, none of the academically-inspired and simply stupid limitations in compiling the graph at boot time vs run time vs build time.... ugh).

Re:Zones (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008910)

You've actually run into the situation where there were two required (but incompatible) kernel patches? I imagine that's somewhat rare, but with zones it's very simple to move a zone to another piece of hardware, so you could satisfy that requirement without too much difficulty.

I agree with you 100% on patch management with Solaris. Friggen headache and slow as molasses. 11 is supposed to introduce IPF though, which they say is much faster and now allows dependency resolution and local patch/package repositories. I guess we'll see how well it works in practice as opposed to the marketing promises.

Nothing new here... (1)

HockeyPuck (141947) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007492)

Partitions in solaris are so.... 1996.

e10k was a POS.... though it was trying mighty hard to keep up with LPARs under AIX...

Re:Nothing new here... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007808)

Solaris Zones and E10K Partitions are 2 different things.

Solaris Zones are similar to BSD Jails ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreeBSD_jail )

I only use real Unix, not fake crap like Linux (4, Funny)

jmcbain (1233044) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007510)

I only use real Unix, like Solaris and Mac OS X, rather than cheap, reverse-engineered, and possibly illegal copies like Linux. At my age and high salary, I should be living like an adult and not steal digital content (like Unix software, movies, or music). I guess if you're young, stupid, and/or poor, then you can go ahead and do immoral things (like touching yourself at night as you stroke your neckbeard, which is what 90% of you do).

Re:I only use real Unix, not fake crap like Linux (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007576)

Kudos to your excellent impersonation of Darl McBride, sir.

Re:I only use real Unix, not fake crap like Linux (1)

corbettw (214229) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008002)

Re:I only use real Unix, not fake crap like Linux (3, Funny)

godrik (1287354) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008896)

wow. Are you keeping tabs on everybody like that?

Solaris is good as dead (2)

Cherubim1 (2501030) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007630)

Oracle has messed up Solaris and pretty much everything they have acquired (Java, Vbox, OO).

Re:Solaris is good as dead (4, Insightful)

afabbro (33948) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008124)

How exactly has Oracle "messed up" VirtualBox?

Re:Solaris is good as dead (1)

kimvette (919543) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008244)

Oracle has been messing up everything else they have acquired that they haven't had time to get around to Virtualbox yet. Don't worry, they'll eventually get around to it - they are fucking up the products in the order of most users to fewest users. ;)

Re:Solaris is good as dead (3, Funny)

phoebus1553 (522577) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008498)

Oracle has been messing up everything else they have acquired that they haven't had time to get around to Virtualbox yet. Don't worry, they'll eventually get around to it - they are fucking up the products in the order of most users to fewest users. ;)

I thought maybe it was alphabetical

Re:Solaris is good as dead (1)

DavidRawling (864446) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008810)

It's only recently that VirtualBox has been hanging guest threads on my workstation/laptop. Version 3 was fine, the 4.0 tree was fine, but the last two releases have been, quite frankly, liquid crap in comparison.

Nothing to see here (1)

diego.viola (1104521) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007684)

Move along. Get Linux.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007836)

Sorry, I'm heterosexual.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

Pf0tzenpfritz (1402005) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007884)

Linux won't even boot on sun4u machines :(

Re:Nothing to see here (2)

d3matt (864260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007970)

Linux won't even boot on sun4u machines :(

Hasn't been updated in awhile, but https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Architectures/SPARC [fedoraproject.org] I've also had gentoo and ubuntu running on ultra 5 workstations...

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008038)

vex ~ # uname -a
Linux vex 3.0.8 #1 Wed Oct 26 01:49:45 EDT 2011 sparc64 sun4u TI UltraSparc IIe (Hummingbird) GNU/Linux
vex ~ #

Re:Nothing to see here (3, Interesting)

JDG1980 (2438906) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007896)

The problem is that for certain purposes, Linux just isn't a viable alternative because it does not contain production-quality support for ZFS. If you're building a NAS device, this is (or should be) a deal-breaker. All the existing Linux file systems suck, and even btrfs doesn't seem to take data integrity nearly as seriously as ZFS does.

Re:Nothing to see here (0, Troll)

fruviad (5032) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007960)

It's Linux. If you need it, build it.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008194)

One Word: FreeBSD 9.0

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

0123456 (636235) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008324)

The problem is that for certain purposes, Linux just isn't a viable alternative because it does not contain production-quality support for ZFS.

Well, duh. Maybe if Oracle released ZFS under the GPL, it would be in the Linux kernel.

Re:Nothing to see here (1, Troll)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008930)

Well duh, maybe if the GPL wasn't hostile to NIH software, it would be in the kernel.

Re:Nothing to see here (1)

merky1 (83978) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008372)

Seriously? Is a well designed file system error handling routine worth 2x - 5x premium you pay to use sparc? considering you could create redundant hosts and multipath solutions with the savings.

Re:Nothing to see here (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008442)

Btrfs? How does it not take data integrity seriously? It supports checksums and redundancy on user data and metadata blocks.

It also has features that ZFS lacks. Defragmentation, shrinking, balancing over adding and removing devices from the pool.

Btrfs is getting close to prime time.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008468)

If you need ZFS, you know where to find FreeBSD. Or NetBSD. Or look into HAMMER.

There's plenty of options out there.

Re:Nothing to see here (0)

spacey (741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008514)

ZFS has been riddled with bugs in practice. Production crashes, re-silvering that fails constantly, magic voodoo incantations to get all pools up and running (I don't mean commands, I mean "well, sometimes the third time we reboot it works"). Uggh. Now that bugs aren't being fixed in opensolaris, I don't know how paying customers can convince solaris support to patch bugs. I used to point out that we wouldn't be paying for a patch that someone had integrated into opensolaris a year prior. I am so happy I don't touch this any more.

What's that? (1)

negatonium (1103503) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007840)

Solaris? Wasn't that a lame sci-fi movie with George Clooney? It's a Unix-based OS from Oracle you say? Humm, never heard of it....

If you're an end user (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007860)

Solaris isn't from you. It's for corporations. A relative who does IT for a moderately large corporation says Solaris performance on SPARC boxes is actually phenomenal, far better than Linux on those same boxes or Solaris on x86.

Re:If you're an end user (1)

d3matt (864260) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007984)

solaris is terrible for distributed compiling

Eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38007882)

I have no issues with Solaris, I used to like it. But since Oracle went all ape shit on OpenSolaris and once again made Solaris yet another walled garden of failure.. eh.

I guess Ellison changed his mind (2)

Dice (109560) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007924)

I guess Ellison changed his mind about cloud computing... here's him a year or two back ranting about how stupid the idea is.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0FacYAI6DY0 [youtube.com]

Re:I guess Ellison changed his mind (2)

dbIII (701233) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008078)

It's a meaningless and deliberately nebulous bullshit buzzword so it deserved a rant.
Remember Sun's "the network is the computer" from quite a few years ago? That fits most definitions of "cloud computing" so if you are already on the bandwagon that others are jumping on, why not let others know? They've provided "cloud" services such as Sun Grid Engine on rentable remote hosts since some time before the cloud hype happened.

Re:I guess Ellison changed his mind (4, Informative)

evilviper (135110) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008432)

I guess Ellison changed his mind about cloud computing...

Quite the opposite. In your own link he summarized by saying:

"I'm not going to fight this thing." but "I don't understand what we would do differently in the light of cloud computing, other than change the wording on some of our ads."

And sure enough, their ads now show how great Solaris is for cloud computing. Based on what?... zones, which have been in Solaris for a number of years.

Re:I guess Ellison changed his mind (2)

saleenS281 (859657) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008642)

What do you expect? At least Larry is being honest. "Cloud" is nothing but a marketing term. Everytime it comes up in a meeting I want to stab myself in the face with a spork.

Freaking sweet!!! (-1, Flamebait)

xmorg (718633) | more than 2 years ago | (#38007936)

linUX killaz!

ZFS v31+ at last? (1)

Zergwyn (514693) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008050)

I think what I'm most excited for with this release is seeing if Oracle follows through on their promise to put out the source for the up-to-the-date work on ZFS. While ZFS at v28 has proven to be both a lot of fun and very useful for many of us, the updates since (first available for general use with Solaris 11 Express last year I believe) add a few really nice features, including crypto and work on block pointer rewrite. While the illumos project could certainly fork it if required, it would be really great if everyone could stay in sync more. After the acquisition, rather then do nightly releases there was a decision to opt for only releasing code with major versions, which while disappointing at least offered hope going forward. I don't see that Oracle has anything to lose here by staying open with that component, filesystems benefit a lot from widespread use and lots of testing, but, well, it is Oracle.

Re:ZFS v31+ at last? (1)

tywjohn (1676686) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008188)

And yet we still don't have a single open cross platform filesystem. Sadly ntfs and vfat are the only filesystems that will work on all modern OSs.

Re:ZFS v31+ at last? (1)

spacey (741) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008542)

> I don't see that Oracle has anything to lose here by staying open with that component, filesystems benefit a lot from widespread use and lots of testing, but, well, it is Oracle.

I believe netapp still believes, somehow, that zfs is wafl, and that they should be paid damages for distribution of their IP.

I know that Daniel Philips has claimed at conferences way back when that he has seen prior art on WAFLs patents, but he still stopped working on Tux2 instead of fighting it. I don't know if Larry and the big O have a patent portfolio that can shut up netapp.

Re:ZFS v31+ at last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008560)

Given that work on ZFS began in earnest in 19EIGHTYFRIGGINTHREE, and NetApp's charges were laughed out of court, I don't think Larry boy's got much to lose sleep over.

Re:ZFS v31+ at last? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008904)

Oh yes they do. Starting from NFS patents (from Sun)... a big pile of stuff which would seem benign as long as everyone plays fair. Otherwise, companies could throw a pile of 3000 patents for your lawyers to sort through and figure out how many patents were violated.

BSD (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008116)

So basically, BSD jails: Solaris edition.

$1,000/year per CPU for non-Oracle hardware (4, Interesting)

Bluecobra (906623) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008304)

Ever since Oracle bought out Sun, they went overboard with the licensing costs for Solaris. Remember a few years back when Sun will let you run Solaris 10 for free? Well no more, if you have a non-Oracle two processor server it will cost you $2,000 per year. You don't own a license, you are basically renting the privilege to run Solaris on a server for one year. Also, you only get one flavor of support which they laughably call "premium". Their support is a joke now, and in my experience the good Sun engineers left a long time ago. For starters, you now get to talk to an overseas helpdesk which logs your call and for severity one issues, they give you a call back in an hour (if you're lucky). It used to be you will call an easy to remember number (1-800-USA-4SUN) and you will get a live transfer to a knowledgeable engineer to fix your problem. A few years ago I used to be a staunch supporter of Sun and Solaris but it seems like Oracle has done everything to drive me away from Sun's hardware and software. I am pretty sure I am not the only one either.

Re:$1,000/year per CPU for non-Oracle hardware (3, Funny)

renegadesx (977007) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008944)

Suddently SCO's "$699 so we won't sue you" is sounding like a bargin.

Positive side (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008828)

On the positive side, Oracle has created a pretty good number of jobs on migration projects from Sun/Solaris to Linux or other Unix flavors. I'm working on a Solaris migration project now for a large bank that still has some Sun servers that they haven't gotten rid of yet.

On the other hand, if you actually like the Solaris platform, Oracle is pure, unadulterated evil.

*crickets chirping* (0)

smash (1351) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008918)

... and no one cares. ZFS development has moved to FreeBSD. DTrace development has likewise moved on from Oracle, and again i suspect either being focused on Illumos or FreeBSD.

Unless you've got SPARC hardware and an oracle software stack, i suspect very few people are going to be excited by this at all.

Re:*crickets chirping* (1)

nrozema (317031) | more than 2 years ago | (#38008952)

ZFS development has moved to FreeBSD.

Last I checked the most recent ZFS on-disk version available for FreeBSD was quite old. ZFS development has been picked up in earnest by Illumos as of late with a lot of backing from companies like Nexenta and Joyent.

Dirty (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#38008934)

I would feel dirty using anything from SUN.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?