Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

ZFS On Linux 0.7.4 Brings Linux 4.14 Support, Fixes

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

  • #11
    On the same site, if you typed XFS into search box, you would have return answer. Type there Fat32 and you have no returns. This for "They also have FAT32 for that matter".

    Oracle HAS to distinguish itself somehow from RHEL, seeing as their Oracle Linux is just a rebranded clone of a RHEL for the most part. Well, they went the road of using recent kernels and included btrfs into mix. Sure as fuck they do not need btrfs for Oracle DB because btrfs does not work well with databases.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
      Omnomnomnomnomracle
      WTF??

      Comment


      • #13
        Originally posted by aht0 View Post
        On the same site, if you typed XFS into search box, you would have return answer. Type there Fat32 and you have no returns. This for "They also have FAT32 for that matter".
        Lol.
        If they support UEFI boot (and they do) then they must have FAT32 (vfat) driver too as they need to be able to write either the bootloader or the whole kernel in the UEFI "system partition", which by spec is formatted as FAT32.

        It's reasonable to assume that they won't brag about supporting FAT32 per-se in their website, due to obvious reasons.

        Oracle HAS to distinguish itself somehow from RHEL, seeing as their Oracle Linux is just a rebranded clone of a RHEL for the most part.
        Tangential to the point.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by DanL View Post
          WTF??
          Oracle is well-known for dropping on something and monetizing it the fastest and easiest way possible, then abandon it. They don't plant nor harvest. They are predators jumping on a prey and eating it raw. Hence the omnomnomnom added to the name. https://www.urbandictionary.com/defi...?term=om%20nom


          Comment


          • #15
            Yeah, I don't know all the modern cool kid lingo, but I got that part...

            Oracle is well-known for dropping on something and monetizing it the fastest and easiest way possible, then abandon it. They don't plant nor harvest. They are predators jumping on a prey and eating it raw. Hence the omnomnomnom added to the name.
            That seems like quite a stretch. Is this something spread around the web I'm hearing for the first time or is this your pet nickname for Oracle that you're hoping catches on? (Good luck with that if it's the latter.)

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
              Lol.
              If they support UEFI boot (and they do) then they must have FAT32 (vfat) driver too as they need to be able to write either the bootloader or the whole kernel in the UEFI "system partition", which by spec is formatted as FAT32.
              It's reasonable to assume that they won't brag about supporting FAT32 per-se in their website, due to obvious reasons.
              Sure, I agree.
              At the same time it also shows XFS is at least an alternative, if not primary file system in Oracle Linux.

              Fact that btrfs is supported by Oracle Linux does not mean Oracle is banking everything on it.

              Comment


              • #17
                Originally posted by DanL View Post
                That seems like quite a stretch.
                Solaris, StarOffice, SPARC, ZFS, and now also Java after they could not get Google to cough up some $$$. Now it is basically leeching off RHEL, and trumpeting around a filesystem they have only a handfew devs for. That's not a stretch.

                Sure they also have their database, and their offering of company-grade software crap.

                Is this something spread around the web I'm hearing for the first time or is this your pet nickname for Oracle that you're hoping catches on? (Good luck with that if it's the latter.)
                Neither, me and Oracle were friends at grade school and we called each other with funny names like that.

                No I won't tell you how Oracle called me back then, lol.

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by aht0 View Post
                  At the same time it also shows XFS is at least an alternative, if not primary file system in Oracle Linux.
                  Afaik XFS should be their default filesystem for root (same as RHEL, and of /home for SUSE).

                  But it still does not matter much, a server installation is done by a sysadmin or some kind of technician, so they will set it up according to their needs, not necessarily accept all defaults blindly (while most end-users of Linux distros go with defaults, out of ignorance or lack of interest)

                  Fact that btrfs is supported by Oracle Linux does not mean Oracle is banking everything on it.
                  again tangential. My point was that Oracle is "selling" a btrfs feature that is not yet in the best shape currently (even if it is much better than before).



                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                    Solaris, StarOffice, SPARC, ZFS, and now also Java after they could not get Google to cough up some $$$. Now it is basically leeching off RHEL, and trumpeting around a filesystem they have only a handfew devs for. That's not a stretch.
                    I know all that. I'm saying it's a stretch from the nickname to their behavior. I mean, Oracleech or Orvulture would be more logical.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
                      Afaik XFS should be their default filesystem for root (same as RHEL, and of /home for SUSE).
                      But it still does not matter much, a server installation is done by a sysadmin or some kind of technician, so they will set it up according to their needs, not necessarily accept all defaults blindly (while most end-users of Linux distros go with defaults, out of ignorance or lack of interest)
                      again tangential. My point was that Oracle is "selling" a btrfs feature that is not yet in the best shape currently (even if it is much better than before).
                      Technician or sysadmin would know not to use BTRFS for databases. It's not like one goes and installs something blindly. Pre-testing would reveal what works and what does not.

                      Well, SUSE is doing same AFAIK. And has been for a very long time, even when BTRFS was rather destructive. So Oracle is nothing special in that regard.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X