Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Tuxera Claims NTFS Is The Fastest File-System For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by jcgeny View Post
    current linux is far from perfect .
    So is windows and any other human creation...

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Apopas View Post
      So is windows and any other human creation...
      Lies! You have not tried my chicken noodle soup. NO SOUP FOR YOU!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by chithanh View Post
        ECC memory is supported on all AMD CPUs since socket 754 days, and only recently AMD started to screw consumers by dropping it from their Fusion parts. I think the majority of AM2/AM3/+ mobos support it too.
        Small correction, Socket A Athlon MPs required ECC in some configurations.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          If the problem is resolved in the block layer it should probably make every native Linux file system safe from the silent data corruption.
          There is a big difference between theory and practice. Even if what you claim is true in theory, there might be problems in Oracle's implementation. Thus, we need someone else, preferably researchers, that examines the Oracle solution.

          You know, in theory, RSA cipher is considered as quite safe, but in practice there might be problems in the implementation of RSA that an attacker can use.



          Originally posted by kraftman View Post
          Like before: there were some changes aimed at the issue. Check this:

          http://blogs.oracle.com/linux/entry/...ata_corruption

          There's a white paper about sdc and Linux.

          I like this part.
          Yes, but white papers are not to be trusted, you have said to me many times. I showed you white papers earlier, but you rejected them all. You said that the white papers that SAP created at www.sap.com, is Sun FUD and Sun propaganda. You said that SAP is business partners with Sun and therefore you can not trust on the official SAP white papers. The odd thing is that SAP is also business partners with several Linux companies: RedHat, SuSE, etc. So SAP should favour Linux, not Solaris.

          When I show white papers to Kraftman, they are FUD and lies. When Kraftman shows me white papers, they are good and to be trusted.

          Anyway, I prefer research instead of white papers. The best would be if different research groups established the same conclusion - but you can not get everything.

          Until there is research on Oracle Unbreakable Linux Kernel and Silent Data Corruption, I would not by sure that the Oracle solution is safe. Maybe research will show Oracle's solution is unsafe, just like everything else: NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, JFS, Hardware Raid, ...

          Comment


          • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
            Yes, but white papers are not to be trusted, you have said to me many times. I showed you white papers earlier, but you rejected them all. You said that the white papers that SAP created at www.sap.com, is Sun FUD and Sun propaganda. You said that SAP is business partners with Sun and therefore you can not trust on the official SAP white papers. The odd thing is that SAP is also business partners with several Linux companies: RedHat, SuSE, etc. So SAP should favour Linux, not Solaris.
            Afaik I said sap sucks. SAP was open source hostile those times, but times changes. However, maybe they're still hostile? And yes, SUN spreaded FUD all the time, but thankfully SUN's dead.

            When I show white papers to Kraftman, they are FUD and lies. When Kraftman shows me white papers, they are good and to be trusted.
            They're from your favourite source, so you don't trust your favourite source? No, the lies and FUD were yours and SUN. You were giving outdated papers usually or not related to disscusion.

            Until there is research on Oracle Unbreakable Linux Kernel and Silent Data Corruption, I would not by sure that the Oracle solution is safe. Maybe research will show Oracle's solution is unsafe, just like everything else: NTFS, ext3, ReiserFS, XFS, JFS, Hardware Raid, ...
            Don't care. Until there there's no present research on ZFS I'm not sure it's still SDC safe. You know, bugs happen and while Oracle leads the project now, they could mess it up or something. Do you have some current research on Oracle's ZFS?

            Comment


            • I wouldn't trust ZFS, because of such bugs:

              http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/...oracle-on.html

              http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/...oss-still.html

              There are many problems with ZFS, so I prefer to use Ext4.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by deanjo View Post
                Lies! You have not tried my chicken noodle soup. NO SOUP FOR YOU!
                Heh I'm lucky I don't like noodles then

                Comment


                • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                  I wouldn't trust ZFS, because of such bugs:

                  http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/...oracle-on.html

                  http://blog.lastinfirstout.net/2010/...oss-still.html

                  There are many problems with ZFS, so I prefer to use Ext4.
                  Yes, there are some problems with ZFS, as it is a young filesystem. It takes decades to iron out all bugs. New code always has bugs. ZFS code is from 2004, so it is only 7 years old. Many Enterprise sysadmins refuse to use filesystems that are young (less than a decade). So... how long do you think it will take before sysadmins will use BTRFS v1.0? BTRFS v1.0 is many years away. After v1.0, serious sysadmins will wait another 5-10 years before they deploy BTRFS. BTRFS is not production ready and will not be in 10 years.

                  Regarding ZFS bugs, yes there are ZFS bugs. There are bugs in every piece of software. If you believe ext4 has no bugs, I suggest you look at this site:
                  https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist....component=ext4
                  Some ext4 bugs is about data loss, too.

                  The difference between ZFS and ext4, is that ZFS is built up from ground with a focus on protecting your data against Silent Corruption. No other filesystems are targeting Silent Corruption protection. There might be bugs in ZFS, yes. But when ZFS does not run into bugs, it protects your data according to research.

                  ext4 might also run into bugs so it will corrupt your data (see the list above). But even when ext4 does not run into bugs and ext4 functions exactly as intended, ext4 will not protect your data. Because ext4 is not designed to protect your data as extensively as ZFS. All filesystems tries to protect your data. Research shows that only ZFS gives good protection. Research shows that all other filesystems fail.

                  I suggest you continue to trust ext4, and I will continue to trust on ZFS. Dont hold your breath for BTRFS though.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                    If you believe ext4 has no bugs, I suggest you look at this site:
                    https://bugzilla.kernel.org/buglist....component=ext4
                    Some ext4 bugs is about data loss, too.
                    No, I agree there are bugs in every piece of software. I consider Ext4 to be enough for desktops and it's probably enough for many other areas.

                    The difference between ZFS and ext4, is that ZFS is built up from ground with a focus on protecting your data against Silent Corruption. No other filesystems are targeting Silent Corruption protection. There might be bugs in ZFS, yes. But when ZFS does not run into bugs, it protects your data according to research.
                    btrfs is also targeting at this.

                    ext4 might also run into bugs so it will corrupt your data (see the list above). But even when ext4 does not run into bugs and ext4 functions exactly as intended, ext4 will not protect your data. Because ext4 is not designed to protect your data as extensively as ZFS. All filesystems tries to protect your data. Research shows that only ZFS gives good protection. Research shows that all other filesystems fail.
                    Research is old. Linux + Oracle's and their friends' infrastructure should give you even better protection than ZFS.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                      Afaik I said sap sucks. SAP was open source hostile those times, but times changes. However, maybe they're still hostile? And yes, SUN spreaded FUD all the time, but thankfully SUN's dead.
                      We had this discussion many times before. You still dont get it, do you?

                      So what is FUD? It is basically, a negative lie. The official SAP benchmarks with Linux and Solaris, are no lies. Anyone can replicate the numbers. SUN did not say "we got 100.000.000 in SAP benchmarks" - Sun did not lie. SUN claimed they got a certain benchmark score, and SUN did get it. SUN did not lie. But you lied. You quoted wikipedia on "FUD" and you confessed that you FUD sometimes. Yes, you wrote that. Kraftman is a FUDer. I can link to your post where you confess that you FUD.

                      So, again: SUN did not lie. It was a controlled benchmark from SAP. And SAP controlled the Linux benchmarks too. Yes, I know you dont like that Linux lost the benchmark, but that is the way it is. Sorry. SAP did not FUD. It is you who dont understand what FUD is, even though you read and quoted wikipedia on FUD, you dont understand what you read.


                      They're from your favourite source, so you don't trust your favourite source? No, the lies and FUD were yours and SUN. You were giving outdated papers usually or not related to disscusion.
                      I gave papers that was a few years old, yes. But you have never showed any papers. You have claimed lots of things, most of it were lies. For instance, you claimed that Solaris scales to 64 cpus. People posted links to Solaris servers with more cpus, I posted a link to a Solaris server with 144 cpus. But still you lied about Solaris scales only 64 cpus, even though you saw evidence of Solaris servers with more cpus. That makes you a liar and FUDer. And you never gave any papers showing that Solaris only scales to 64 cpus. The reason you did not give such papers: they dont exist. Solaris scales much higher.

                      I have many times asked you to post any papers that support your claims, but you never did. Never ever. Not a single paper. I have posted several papers, that was 2-3 years old, yes. You never posted any papers.


                      Don't care. Until there there's no present research on ZFS I'm not sure it's still SDC safe. You know, bugs happen and while Oracle leads the project now, they could mess it up or something. Do you have some current research on Oracle's ZFS?
                      I have posted research paper on ZFS and Silent Data Corruption above here, which you know I have. I have showed you that paper several times before, but you denied it to exist. You did not reject the research, but you denied the paper existed. I posted the paper, and you said something like "Liar, show me the paper! Where is the paper??" And I posted the paper again, and you kept repeating like a robot "where is the paper?? Show it to me!!!"

                      So, I dont think there is any use if I post the same paper again here. You will probably deny it's existence. You will pretend to not see the paper, no matter how many times I show it to you. And at the end you will probably say something like: "haha, you did not show any research paper on ZFS and SDC, which means you lie! FUDer! Moahahahaha!!! Where is the paper??? I can not see any paper, you are a FUDer!!!". Just like you did the previous time we had this same discussion.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                        We had this discussion many times before. You still dont get it, do you?

                        So what is FUD? It is basically, a negative lie. The official SAP benchmarks with Linux and Solaris, are no lies. Anyone can replicate the numbers. SUN did not say "we got 100.000.000 in SAP benchmarks" - Sun did not lie. SUN claimed they got a certain benchmark score, and SUN did get it. SUN did not lie. But you lied. You quoted wikipedia on "FUD" and you confessed that you FUD sometimes. Yes, you wrote that. Kraftman is a FUDer. I can link to your post where you confess that you FUD.

                        So, again: SUN did not lie. It was a controlled benchmark from SAP. And SAP controlled the Linux benchmarks too. Yes, I know you dont like that Linux lost the benchmark, but that is the way it is. Sorry. SAP did not FUD. It is you who dont understand what FUD is, even though you read and quoted wikipedia on FUD, you dont understand what you read.
                        Wrong. While benchmarks were showing some numbers your conclusions were stupid and irrelevant. I didn't say a sap benchmark is a lie or FUD. You're just manipulating. I've showed you link where Linux devs says Bonwick (from SUN) does FUD. That's enough.



                        I gave papers that was a few years old, yes. But you have never showed any papers. You have claimed lots of things, most of it were lies.
                        I showed you papers. Even in this thread. You claimed lots of things, most of it were lies.

                        For instance, you claimed that Solaris scales to 64 cpus. People posted links to Solaris servers with more cpus, I posted a link to a Solaris server with 144 cpus.
                        Are you able to point to that? Maybe I meant it scales to 64 CPUs, but then it sucks?

                        But still you lied about Solaris scales only 64 cpus, even though you saw evidence of Solaris servers with more cpus. That makes you a liar and FUDer. And you never gave any papers showing that Solaris only scales to 64 cpus. The reason you did not give such papers: they dont exist. Solaris scales much higher.
                        Nope, but saying Linux doesn't scale makes you a lier and FUDer. You've never gave any papers showing that Linux doesn't scale.

                        I have many times asked you to post any papers that support your claims, but you never did. Never ever. Not a single paper. I have posted several papers, that was 2-3 years old, yes. You never posted any papers.
                        The lies.

                        I have posted research paper on ZFS and Silent Data Corruption above here, which you know I have. I have showed you that paper several times before, but you denied it to exist. You did not reject the research, but you denied the paper existed. I posted the paper, and you said something like "Liar, show me the paper! Where is the paper??" And I posted the paper again, and you kept repeating like a robot "where is the paper?? Show it to me!!!"
                        Haha, but I wanted papers which backup your claims. You were FUDing and lying a lot thus I was asking for papers.

                        So, I dont think there is any use if I post the same paper again here. You will probably deny it's existence. You will pretend to not see the paper, no matter how many times I show it to you.
                        You're still lying, because I don't pretend I don't see the paper. While I was talking about sdc this sounds strange.

                        And at the end you will probably say something like: "haha, you did not show any research paper on ZFS and SDC, which means you lie! FUDer! Moahahahaha!!! Where is the paper??? I can not see any paper, you are a FUDer!!!". Just like you did the previous time we had this same discussion.
                        This time you made some little research.

                        Comment


                        • @kebb

                          Btw. it seems you know a lot about ZFS. What about the data which is stored on the drive, but is accessed after very long time (like few months)? ZFS checks its integrity when data is read back, right? There are chances the good data were lost during that time. How ZFS will handle this? Thanks to Oracle's support there's possibility to save such data on Linux. I think they meant such protection when they were saying this:

                          The 2.6.27 Linux kernel got bolstered today by "block I/O data integrity infrastructure" code which is seen by Oracle, the code's contributor, as a first for any operating system.
                          What about ZFS? It seems it cannot save you from such scenario thus your thesis is obsolete.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by crazycheese View Post

                            *1* Platter surface demagnetization errors! SMART detect this.
                            Isn't data on the drive checksummed for each sector? Single bit errors and bit rot should be reported as read errors by the hardware.
                            Last edited by misiu_mp; 06-29-2011, 05:55 AM.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by misiu_mp View Post
                              Isn't data on the drive checksummed for each sector? Single bit errors and bit rot should be reported as read errors by the hardware.
                              No, you should read my posts. If you were correct, then CERN would never report any Silent Corruption issues. But there are lots of Silent Corruption in several research reports.

                              To summarize: modern disks devote 25% of it's surface to error correcting codes. During usage, lots of errors occur. Most of the errors are corrected in flight, but some errors are difficult and complex, those errors can not be corrected. Every 10^16 bits are not correctable (read the spec sheet of a new SAS Server Enterprise disk that is designed for reliability and safety of data, even SAS disks can not correct all errors). Some of those errors are not even detectable, neither the hardware nor the OS detects the errors.

                              I have taken all the information above, from this link. Here you can read much more on this problem, and there are also several research papers:
                              http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#Data_Integrity
                              Last edited by kebabbert; 06-30-2011, 07:28 AM.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                @kebb

                                Btw. it seems you know a lot about ZFS. What about the data which is stored on the drive, but is accessed after very long time (like few months)? ZFS checks its integrity when data is read back, right? There are chances the good data were lost during that time. How ZFS will handle this?
                                ZFS will check integrity when reading data, yes. If you dont read data, ZFS will not check integrity.

                                But, you can force read of data with "scrub". It is similar to "fsck", but you can scrub in the background while you use the zfs raid. "fsck" requires you to unmount the filesystem and you can not use the filesystem while you check your data with fsck. But, fsck only checks metadata, it does not check the actual data which might be corrupted. For instance, someone said he did fsck on XFS on a 4TB raid, which took like 1 minute or so. This means he read something like 1GB/sec or another huge number. That is not possible to do. This means XFS fsck should not be trusted, because it did not read every sector. ZFS reads every sector, and "scrub" can take some time to do. But you can use your data meanwhile. There is no "fsck" in ZFS, there is only scrub.

                                You should do scrub every month if you have server Enterprise disks. And every week, if you have ordinary SATA disks. More often with commodity disks, because they have lower quality than server disks. Preferably with crontab.

                                Because ZFS has checksums everywhere, ZFS immediately detects errors. For instance, read this short story what ZFS can do. I doubt any Linux solution can do this?
                                http://blogs.oracle.com/elowe/entry/...ves_the_day_ta

                                ZFS automatically repairs the detected errors. ZFS even detects Silent Corruption (which Linux filesystems can not detect, how can Linux repair Silent Corruption when Linux can not detect the errors?). ZFS repairs the errors if some kind of redundancy is provided. This means ZFS needs to have raid setup, so every sector is copied to another disk. If one sector is corrupt, ZFS read from another disk. If you have no redundancy (only a single disk), ZFS can not repair the error, but ZFS will always detect the error and inform you of the error.

                                However, if you have a single disk, you can specify "copies=2" which means every sector will be doubled on a single disk. This halves the storage capacity of the disk, because every data exists in two different sectors. But this gives safety if you have one disk. I dont think any Linux filesystems has this feature on a single disk. Linux needs two disks or more.




                                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                Thanks to Oracle's support there's possibility to save such data on Linux. I think they meant such protection when they were saying this:

                                "...The 2.6.27 Linux kernel got bolstered today by "block I/O data integrity infrastructure" code which is seen by Oracle, the code's contributor, as a first for any operating system..."
                                It is a great feature. Or is it? As I have said, all filesystems and hardware raid tries to give data safety, but no one succeeds according to research. Hans Reiser tried heavily to give data safety, but failed. So, this "block I/O data integrity infrastructure" - is it safe? Have the engineers succeeded? Are there research on this? Lack of research does not prove it to be safe.

                                If I have an antivirus program, and it never trigger warnings - does it mean I never get virus, or does it mean the antivirus program is bad? Lack of warnings does not mean I am completely safe. Maybe there are viruses, that my computer does not notice? Lack of research does not prove something is safe.




                                Originally posted by kraftman View Post
                                What about ZFS? It seems it cannot save you from such scenario thus your thesis is obsolete.
                                It has not been proven that the Linux solution works well. I understand the Oracle engineers tried hard, but did they succeed?

                                And even if there is research on Oracle Linux, it does not prove that ZFS is bad. ZFS research shows ZFS to be safer than any other filesystem today.

                                If there was Oracle Linux research which shows Oracle Linux is safe, it does not make ZFS unsafe. The ZFS research is still valid. In that case, ZFS and Oracle Linux would be safe according to research. But today, research only shows ZFS to be safe. Maybe Oracle Linux is safe, we dont know yet.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X