Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Netbook Performance: Ubuntu vs. OpenSolaris

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
    In all my years of computing I have never seen a system that exhibited robust behavior with full disks. Even with systems that are otherwise quite bulletproof, all bets are off when the disks fill. It's like expecting robust behavior from an airplane when it runs out of fuel in the middle of the sky.
    Sure, but I wasn't talking about full disks as in "no space left on device". I was talking about 80-90% full disks that lead to an I/O speed dropping to a few kilobytes per second. Not a very good thing to happen with hundreds of users doing stuff simultaniously on that disk.

    Comment


    • #72
      Originally posted by mudd1 View Post
      I'm really too lazy to read the whole thread so excuse me if I just don't know what you're flaming about. But it seems to me as if an example of someone switching from Solaris to Linux was searched for.
      'Discussion' if I can say this, was at extremaly low level. It's not hard to guess where such talk usually leads, so there's no motivation to proof anything (cause anyone knows its version...). If you want to have fun read it from begining, but I'm not sure if you'll find there something interesting.

      What's easy to realize Kebbabert is some kind of troll or he's just incredibly dumb (however, he ignored my private message, so it looks like he's rather a troll or a dumb troll, whatever...). There's always possibility he just wanted to make me laugh. If yes, thank you very much

      Comment


      • #73
        mudd1
        There are lots of people switching from Solaris and from IBM AIX to Linux. This is because of cost issues or politics (as Solaris entry level support is cheaper than e.g. RedHat).

        What I asked for, is links showing people switching from Solaris to Linux because of stability issues. I have never seen such testimonies.

        Regarding your problems. It is well known that ZFS has some bugs and performance issues. It takes many years to get a file system stable, maybe decades. BTRFS will need many years before even reaching beta phase.

        It seems your problems are filesystem related due to ZFS. And not because of stability issues. Solaris has also a mature filesystem, UFS. Maybe you didnt knew that. Anyway, it seems that your problems are about file system and not stability. Hence, I am not really interested in your story. ZFS has bugs and is not perfect. It takes decades to get such stuff good. As Operating System scaling, which also takes decades. Impossible to achieve in a few years. It takes decades.



        Kraftman,
        regarding your PM. I didnt notice them until now, why fork the discussion from the forum over to PM? Anyway, Ive read your PMs, and your links now. I must say your "profffffs" are strange. You reason weird. You show me links from Linux v2.2
        http://www.astahost.com/info.php/Lin...nels_t961.html
        vs ancient Solaris. That doesnt prove anything about current status. And also, your link doesnt talk about stability or anything.

        You may have heard about current Solaris 10. It is version 5.10. Years earlier we had Solaris 9, which is Solaris v5.9. And Solaris 8 which is Solaris v5.8. Your link talks about Solaris v2.2!! Jesus, it is old. Your link doesnt prove anything.

        Regarding your comment to why Linux is successfull, and Solaris is not - and point to the link. I dont agree. Linux is successfull not because of technical merits - because Linux has no technical merits. Linux has no new tech, Linux just copies. Linux copies ZFS and call it BTRFS. Same with DTrace and other techniques. Linux follows and copies. Linux doesnt invents. And it is unstable with unstable API/ABI. No technical merits.

        The reason Linux is successfull is because it is possible to big large companies around Linux. Some analyst explained this. You can found a Linux company and be dollar billionare. Nobody "owns" Linux. But you can not found a large company around Solaris or FreeBSD - as someone owns them Operating Systems. You can be rich on founding a Linux company. Someone else develops Linux, you just package and sell it. You do no work, it is like selling air. And you become a dollar billionare. That is the reason Linux is successfull. If Linus would release his own Linux distro, saying that "this is the official Linux distro" then everyone would abandon Linux. Linux would be as Freebsd - owned by some one. RedHat would die. Everyone would use Linux own distro. No more dollar Billionare. No more Linux.
        Last edited by kebabbert; 08-10-2009, 08:45 AM.

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
          The reason Linux is successfull is because it is possible to big large companies around Linux. Some analyst explained this. You can found a Linux company and be dollar billionare. Nobody "owns" Linux. But you can not found a large company around Solaris or FreeBSD - as someone owns them Operating Systems. You can be rich on founding a Linux company. Someone else develops Linux, you just package and sell it. You do no work, it is like selling air. And you become a dollar billionare. That is the reason Linux is successfull. If Linus would release his own Linux distro, saying that "this is the official Linux distro" then everyone would abandon Linux. Linux would be as Freebsd - owned by some one. RedHat would die. Everyone would use Linux own distro. No more dollar Billionare. No more Linux.
          You are confused...

          Self made operation systems based on Linux can be distributed as a Linux-based distribution because the license (mostly GPL) of the individual parts which conform the distribution allow to do this.

          FreeBSD uses mostly (and prefer) the BSD license, which is less restrictive that the GPL. This gives everybody the chance to create their own FreeBSD-based distribution.
          This is way distributions like PC-BSD, DesktopBSD and also Debian GNU/kFreeBSD exists.

          This is one of the advantages of the FOSS, which FreeBSD, Linux, and many Open Solaris components are part of.

          So, what you say is not a valid argument.


          Did you know that Linux has almost 90% of the Top500 OS share? http://www.top500.org/stats/list/33/os Ah, and Open Solaris has 0.2%, congratulations!

          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
            Regarding your comment to why Linux is successfull, and Solaris is not - and point to the link. I dont agree. Linux is successfull because of technical merits - because Linux has no technical merits. Linux has no new tech, Linux just copies. Linux copies ZFS and call it BTRFS. Same with DTrace and other techniques. Linux follows and copies. Linux doesnt invents. And it is unstable with unstable API/ABI. No technical merits.
            Well, by the way you say Linux has unstable API you make it sound negative as if the Linux's devs can not make one. Actually, unstable API means that it constantly changes because the developers choosed that way. If you agree or not with their ways doesn't matter. The matter is that it's by choice. Only Linux works in that way, well that's an innovation and while that strategy is bad for the mainstream, Linux is succesful. Now, your commnet about the copies of Linux is very vague, a matter of personal opinion mainly rather than justification or even common sense. I even have heard that KDE and Gnome copied Windows because they both use windows and folders...

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by KDesk View Post
              You are confused...

              Self made operation systems based on Linux can be distributed as a Linux-based distribution because the license (mostly GPL) of the individual parts which conform the distribution allow to do this.

              FreeBSD uses mostly (and prefer) the BSD license, which is less restrictive that the GPL. This gives everybody the chance to create their own FreeBSD-based distribution.
              This is way distributions like PC-BSD, DesktopBSD and also Debian GNU/kFreeBSD exists.

              This is one of the advantages of the FOSS, which FreeBSD, Linux, and many Open Solaris components are part of.

              So, what you say is not a valid argument.
              Maybe I wasnt clear enough. FreeBSD has an official distro. No one can come and make another FreeBSD distro and found a large company around it. Why should anyone pay for the non-official FreeBSD distro? Anyone serious on using FreeBSD, will use the official FreeBSD distro. Not RedHat FreeBSD distro, or whatever. There is ONE official FreeBSD distro.

              Linux has no official distro. Linus dabbles with the sucky kernel. Anyone can come and create a Linux distro and found a large company around it and become $ billionaire. Look at RedHat founders. Anyone can take Linux and make lots of money from it. That is not possible to do with FreeBSD. But if there was one official Linux distro by Linus Torvalds, then everyone would abandon RedHat, SuSE, etc. Every serious customer would stick to the official Linux distro, supported by Linus himself.

              What do you think serious customers prefer? A windows clone as ReactOS or true Windows by Microsoft? You can not profit large from FreeBSD, no customer will choose your FreeBSD distro variant. They will all use the original.


              Originally posted by KDesk View Post
              Did you know that Linux has almost 90% of the Top500 OS share? http://www.top500.org/stats/list/33/os Ah, and Open Solaris has 0.2%, congratulations!
              Jesus. We have been through this before just recently. The point is, the Top500 says nothing. On rank nr 5, we find IBM Blue Gene with 700MHz PowerPC CPU. Does this mean that the 700MHz PowerPC is faster than most CPUs?

              Linux is easy to tailor to do number crunching, but such a kernel does nothing else. It can only do one thing. Linux scales good on clusters, but sucks on big iron.



              Apopas,
              Of course it is a bad thing to have unstable API and ABIs! The only reason Linux has unstable is because Linus does not know how to do it right. That is BAD DESIGN. A good design doesnt need to change API/ABIs all the time. Well designed interface is better than badly designed interface.

              If you upgrade your Linux kernel, then maybe your drivers will not work correctly. They will crash during certain circumstances. This makes Linux unstable under high load. How in earth can you consider this as a good thing? Have you ever programmed professionally yourself?? I doubt that.


              Here we see an example of the unstable Linux kernel. On the Linux kernel mail list, the Linux gurus are fighting again. Alan Cox thinks that the Linux kernel bugs should be corrected, instead of working around the bugs in the applications. When a Kernel bug is corrected, it may break applications, but that is ok. The applications have to be recompiled. Linus T says that he should not blame Kernel bugs, but instead code around the bugs. As a result, developer Alan Cox has quit. Just as Kernel developer Con Kolivas.
              http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/28/375

              All these regressions and bugs in the Linux kernel makes it hard to create a stable environment. Yes, I know Kraftman will consider this lkml thread as FUD and lies, made by me. But you others can read the thread and see all the complaints on the Kernel bugs making it hard to do stable apps and device drivers. The main point being unstable API and ABI. That is the culprit. Unstable API/ABI makes the whole kernel unstable. Which is a BAD THING. Better to design correct from the beginning.




              http://lkml.org/lkml/2009/7/24/182
              Rafael:
              Well, I thought we were expected to avoid breaking existing user space, even if that were buggy etc.

              Alan Cox:
              I don't know where you got that idea from. Avoiding breaking user space unneccessarily is good but if its buggy you often can't do anything about it.

              Linus:
              Alan, he got that idea from me. We don't do regressions. If user space depended on old behavior, we don't change behavior.
              Last edited by kebabbert; 08-10-2009, 08:59 AM.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                Linux has no official distro. Linus dabbles with the sucky kernel. Anyone can come and create a Linux distro and found a large company around it and become $ billionaire. Look at RedHat founders. Anyone can take Linux and make lots of money from it. That is not possible to do with FreeBSD.
                That's exactly the reason Linux rocks. Freedom in every aspect of it!

                Apopas,
                Of course it is a bad thing to have unstable API and ABIs! The only reason Linux has unstable is because Linus does not know how to do it right. That is BAD DESIGN. A good design doesnt need to change API/ABIs all the time. Well designed interface is better than badly designed interface.

                If you upgrade your Linux kernel, then maybe your drivers will not work correctly. They will crash during certain circumstances. This makes Linux unstable under high load. How in earth can you consider this as a good thing? Have you ever programmed professionally yourself?? I doubt that.
                Why on earth we have always to repeat again and again old debates?
                Plz read this, I have posted it over and over. That's the reason Linux is like that and makes it better than any other operating system. Purely by choice!
                http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                  That's exactly the reason Linux rocks. Freedom in every aspect of it!
                  And that is the reason Linux is successfull, whereas FreeBSD is not. You can make lots and lots of money on Linux. Where the money is, everyone goes there. If Linus T said that all Linux distros are obsolete and people should use his official Linux distro, then RedHat would die. Everyone would abandon Linux. No more multi billionaires = no more attention from companies. It is all driven by money. If Linus T somehow forbade people to make money on Linux, it would die. FreeBSD will never produce any dollar billionaires. Neither will OpenSolaris. Because someone "owns" those OS, there is one and only official distro.

                  I am not confused.

                  Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                  Why on earth we have always to repeat again and again old debates?
                  Plz read this, I have posted it over and over. That's the reason Linux is like that and makes it better than any other operating system. Purely by choice!
                  http://www.kroah.com/log/linux/ols_2006_keynote.html
                  What a bunch of horse shit that article is. Do you really believe that propaganda? Have you read it?

                  "Last year Dave Jones told everyone that the kernel was going to pieces, with loads of bugs being found and no end in sight."

                  Also linux dev Andrew Morton complains on this. And Alan Cox. etc etc. So how can the article state that Linux is the most stable OS when the article states the kernel is full of bugs? Did IQ dropped while I was gone?

                  And the linux design principle ("there is no design, only evolution") that just plainly sucks big time. Why? Because it is hard to make the Linux environment stable. Because there is no stable API/ABI. Linus T says it helps him to make the Kernel more stable and clean. There are no old APIs that have to be maintained, all old things gets removed. The kernel is always up-to-date with current API. No old stuff left. This helps Linus to make a less complex, simple kernel and stable. He says.

                  That is bull shit. Solaris kernel has frozen the API and ABI since many many years back and old drivers and applications on small desktops work in multi million Big Iron today. Solaris kernel evolves constantly. If you design it right, there are is contradiction between stable API and clean kernel. ZFS, DTrace, etc etc all those tech rocks AND having a stable API/ABI at the same time. It CAN be done. It just Linus that doesnt know how to do that. The SUN company has the largest concentration of PhD in a company, Ive heard. That may be true. The Solaris kernel is complex and intricate, with lots of new high tech all the time; ZFS, Zones, SMF, DTrace, etc. SUN's engineers are top notch. Linux is simple and easily modified as M.Sc Linus rewrites big parts all the time. Then the kernel must be simple to modify - which suits Top500 well.

                  If I were to start with kernel development, I would surely start with Linux. Because it is friendly and easy. There are lots of links and help to get, starting with kernel development. Solaris kernel has not equally much documentation, and it is the product of many PhDs. I wouldnt dare touch it until Ive become a kernel guru.

                  You are confused.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by Apopas View Post
                    Well, by the way you say Linux has unstable API you make it sound negative as if the Linux's devs can not make one. Actually, unstable API means that it constantly changes because the developers choosed that way. If you agree or not with their ways doesn't matter. The matter is that it's by choice. Only Linux works in that way, well that's an innovation and while that strategy is bad for the mainstream, Linux is succesful. Now, your commnet about the copies of Linux is very vague, a matter of personal opinion mainly rather than justification or even common sense. I even have heard that KDE and Gnome copied Windows because they both use windows and folders...
                    That's it As far as I know kernel devs prefer 'unstable' API, because there's always better way to do things. Now I know, thanks to you

                    That's exactly the reason Linux rocks. Freedom in every aspect of it!
                    Fanboys don't get it

                    P.S. Great link from the great source if you know what I mean :>

                    @KDesk

                    Yeah TOP-500 where Linux killed Solaris (incredibly quick IMO). The same situation is probably when comes to 'big irons', but it looks we can have endless discussion here... If XEN will be merged it's possible other systems will loose it, because it must satisfy Linux's kernel standards and thus it has to be modified (maybe there's another possibility, but this one is what I read). If this happen we'll probably have similar situation like when comes to TOP-500.


                    @Kebbabert

                    Regarding your comment to why Linux is successfull, and Solaris is not - and point to the link. I dont agree. Linux is successfull because of technical merits - because Linux has no technical merits. Linux has no new tech, Linux just copies. Linux copies ZFS and call it BTRFS. Same with DTrace and other techniques. Linux follows and copies. Linux doesnt invents. And it is unstable with unstable API/ABI. No technical merits.
                    Hahaha, i.e. Linux's RCU (and then hierarchical RCU) is something you can dream about as Solaris or *BSD, or whatever user (if you have a lot of CPUs). Linux follows in some ways, because like I mentioned before they aren't reinventing the wheel and they make new stuff also. You're saying something opposite to what you were claiming before. The most important Linux's merits are performance, scalability and flexibility (and license). However, can you backup your statement? You don't expect someone will give you counterarguments if you didn't give any, right? DTrace? I say Systemtap.

                    Anyone can come and create a Linux distro and found a large company around it and become $ billionaire. Look at RedHat founders. Anyone can take Linux and make lots of money from it. That is not possible to do with FreeBSD.
                    You can do the same with *BSD code and you can even close it, but question is why almost nobody's interested? :> And no anyone, it must be good.

                    If nobody will quote your text I won't reply (). You already proved you don't understand obvious things.
                    Last edited by kraftman; 08-10-2009, 01:32 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #80
                      Originally posted by kebabbert View Post
                      And that is the reason Linux is successfull, whereas FreeBSD is not. You can make lots and lots of money on Linux. Where the money is, everyone goes there. If Linus T said that all Linux distros are obsolete and people should use his official Linux distro, then RedHat would die. Everyone would abandon Linux. No more multi billionaires = no more attention from companies. It is all driven by money. If Linus T somehow forbade people to make money on Linux, it would die. FreeBSD will never produce any dollar billionaires. Neither will OpenSolaris. Because someone "owns" those OS, there is one and only official distro.
                      Well, that "owns" thing is curse no good...
                      The only reason the users will abandon every other distro for the one Torvalds recommends, will be that the Torvalds-dist will meet their needs while the rest won't. But if ever Torvalds says something like that then the only thing he will succeed will be to divide the community in two parts. 1% will use his Linux till it totally dies along with his reputation and 99% will use Linux2 which will just be the fork and continuation of Linux as we know it now. That's the power of GPL!

                      I am not confused.
                      I didn't say such a thing, maybe you are, maybe not, I don't know. But for sure you are biased.


                      What a bunch of horse shit that article is. Do you really believe that propaganda? Have you read it?
                      Propaganda? Hahaha. That's propaganda and your's is not? At least he is a kernel developer and doesn't own it.
                      And yes I've read it many years ago and many times since then. Linux design has not changed since the time this article has been written, but Linux's success has for the better.

                      And the linux design principle ("there is no design, only evolution") that just plainly sucks big time. Why? Because it is hard to make the Linux environment stable. Because there is no stable API/ABI.
                      So you say here Linux has not stable API and that sucks because there is not stable API...

                      That is bull shit. Solaris kernel has frozen the API and ABI since many many years back and old drivers and applications on small desktops work in multi million Big Iron today.
                      Huh? What small desktops are you talking about? Are there one hundred around the world? As RealNC said once "Solaris for desktop is like mustard for ice-cream"

                      Solaris kernel evolves constantly.
                      Yeah, that's obvious, only Solaris evolves...

                      You are confused.
                      Again I didn't say such a thing but anyway I'm not either confused or biased
                      Last edited by Apopas; 08-10-2009, 06:43 PM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X