Reiser4 and ZFS

Reiser4 and ZFS

[Job Bob]

     Hello all. I just read
http://www.sun.com/2004-0914/feature/ about
ZFS, Sun's new file system for Solaris 10 and want to
know how does it compare to reiser4 as well as future
versions of reiserfs.

  Anything said by Sun or Microsoft has to be taken
with a bag of salt, so when they say breakthrough, do
they really mean it is that advanced? From
my understanding, ZFS just improves on the file system
internals such as the maximum limits and easing
administration. I think this is pretty much similar to
SGI's XFS which was mostly for in house use. It's very
robust and scalable (to a limited degree). Reiser fs
on the other hand (correct me if I'm wrong) is about a
creating a much more general file system (name space)
with limitless extendibility/scalability (not just for
size/performance).

  So if ZFS is not the vaporware that WinFS is, what
new features of ZFS are worth incorporating into
Reiser fs? Will Reiser fs continue to stay ahead of
ZFS?

                                      Yale


	
		
__________________________________ 
Do you Yahoo!? 
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we. 
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail

Re: Reiser4 and ZFS

[Chris Cox]

Job Bob wrote:
...
>   So if ZFS is not the vaporware that WinFS is, what
> new features of ZFS are worth incorporating into
> Reiser fs? Will Reiser fs continue to stay ahead of
> ZFS?

ZFS is vaporware at the moment.  A marketing blurb,
not a released product.  An alpha version will probably
come for Solaris 10 about mid year... not sure when
it will be "blessed" for production use.

Folks closer to Sun are welcome to correct my
assessment.

Re: Reiser4 and ZFS

[Hendrik Visage]

On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 10:27:41AM -0600, Chris Cox wrote:
> ZFS is vaporware at the moment.  A marketing blurb,
> not a released product.  An alpha version will probably
> come for Solaris 10 about mid year... not sure when
> it will be "blessed" for production use.

Isn't ZFS yet released as part of Solaris 10?

Re: Reiser4 and ZFS

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 1041 bytes --]

On Tue, 14 Dec 2004 22:46:08 PST, Job Bob said:

>   So if ZFS is not the vaporware that WinFS is, what
> new features of ZFS are worth incorporating into
> Reiser fs? Will Reiser fs continue to stay ahead of
> ZFS?

This of course depends in a *large* part on how exactly you define "ahead".

For many shops, it's quite likely that a ZFS with "more scalability and
administration" is The Right Choice, especially if it does *NOT* include lots
of odd new features and quirks that might break production code (remember the
joys in getting Apache running on reiser4, until it was discovered that the
'file-as-directory' stuff broke programs that weren't expecting it?).

The criteria I use for rating a filesystem as being "ahead" for use on my
laptop (where new cool features often count for more than stability or
performance) are very different than what I want for a mail server.  And the
guy 3 cubicles over doesn't *care* about the details of filesystems - he just
worries about "will this make Oracle run faster or more robustly?".....

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

reiser4 and apache (was: Re: Reiser4 and ZFS)

[Sander]

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> For many shops, it's quite likely that a ZFS with "more scalability
> and administration" is The Right Choice, especially if it does *NOT*
> include lots of odd new features and quirks that might break
> production code (remember the joys in getting Apache running on
> reiser4, until it was discovered that the 'file-as-directory' stuff
> broke programs that weren't expecting it?).

I just got bitten by this. Is it possible to get apache to run on
reiser4, and if so, how?

I'm nog lazy, I just didn't search the archives yet :-)

Will do now, but if anybody knows a quick answer..

Re: reiser4 and apache (was: Re: Reiser4 and ZFS)

[Valdis.Kletnieks]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 734 bytes --]

On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:28:15 +0100, Sander said:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> > For many shops, it's quite likely that a ZFS with "more scalability
> > and administration" is The Right Choice, especially if it does *NOT*
> > include lots of odd new features and quirks that might break
> > production code (remember the joys in getting Apache running on
> > reiser4, until it was discovered that the 'file-as-directory' stuff
> > broke programs that weren't expecting it?).
> 
> I just got bitten by this. Is it possible to get apache to run on
> reiser4, and if so, how?

I think the archives have pointers to both a reiser4 patch that disables
the "file as directory", and a patch to apache to deal with the situation...

[-- Attachment #2: Type: application/pgp-signature, Size: 226 bytes --]

Re: reiser4 and apache (was: Re: Reiser4 and ZFS)

[Sander]

Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:28:15 +0100, Sander said:
> > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> > > For many shops, it's quite likely that a ZFS with "more scalability
> > > and administration" is The Right Choice, especially if it does *NOT*
> > > include lots of odd new features and quirks that might break
> > > production code (remember the joys in getting Apache running on
> > > reiser4, until it was discovered that the 'file-as-directory' stuff
> > > broke programs that weren't expecting it?).
> > 
> > I just got bitten by this. Is it possible to get apache to run on
> > reiser4, and if so, how?
> 
> I think the archives have pointers to both a reiser4 patch that disables
> the "file as directory", and a patch to apache to deal with the situation...

I can't find it in the archives, nor with google or on the Namesys
website (namely download, getting started with v4, and the FAQ).

I did find this mail from Hans about the issue and his request for a
patch for apache:
http://www.dragoninc.on.ca/mail-archives/reiserfs/2004-08/0583.html

That thread doesn't contain a patch unfortunately.

Can somebody please point me to a patch to disable the file as a
directory feature?

Hans, would this be something for a mount option? And shouldn't more
info on this be on the website?

Thanks in advance.

Re: reiser4 and apache (was: Re: Reiser4 and ZFS)

[Alex Zarochentsev]

Hi,

On Tue, Dec 28, 2004 at 12:12:39PM +0100, Sander wrote:
> Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> > On Mon, 27 Dec 2004 13:28:15 +0100, Sander said:
> > > Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu wrote (ao):
> > > > For many shops, it's quite likely that a ZFS with "more scalability
> > > > and administration" is The Right Choice, especially if it does *NOT*
> > > > include lots of odd new features and quirks that might break
> > > > production code (remember the joys in getting Apache running on
> > > > reiser4, until it was discovered that the 'file-as-directory' stuff
> > > > broke programs that weren't expecting it?).
> > > 
> > > I just got bitten by this. Is it possible to get apache to run on
> > > reiser4, and if so, how?
> > 
> > I think the archives have pointers to both a reiser4 patch that disables
> > the "file as directory", and a patch to apache to deal with the situation...
> 
> I can't find it in the archives, nor with google or on the Namesys
> website (namely download, getting started with v4, and the FAQ).
> 
> I did find this mail from Hans about the issue and his request for a
> patch for apache:
> http://www.dragoninc.on.ca/mail-archives/reiserfs/2004-08/0583.html
> 
> That thread doesn't contain a patch unfortunately.
> 
> Can somebody please point me to a patch to disable the file as a
> directory feature?

it is disabled in the recent reiser4 code.

mount options 'nopseudo' should work for older versions.

> Hans, would this be something for a mount option? And shouldn't more
> info on this be on the website?
> 
> Thanks in advance.

-- 
Alex.

Re: reiser4 and apache (was: Re: Reiser4 and ZFS)

[Sander]

Alex Zarochentsev wrote (ao):
> > Can somebody please point me to a patch to disable the file as a
> > directory feature?
> 
> it is disabled in the recent reiser4 code.

That means the latest -mm (not 2.6.10-rc3-mm1) will contain the patch
too?

> mount options 'nopseudo' should work for older versions.

Remount doesn't seem to work. Google suggests that it should be passed
as a kernel argument during boot. Is that both true?