(Apologies for top-posting, but it's just easier on iOS). Certification by definition is limited: we can only certify on platforms provided by vendors with whom we have an active ISV partnership. Using Microsoft as an example: we certified Windows on Oracle VM and they certified Oracle Linux on Hyper-V and Azure. And IBM retain their Power platform, a direct competitor to SPARC. Finally, I suspect your trust of ZFS comes from your experience. If you gave btrfs the same time (without the expectation of feature-to-feature parity), you may find yourself trusting it too. Sent from my iPhone
On 31 Oct 2014, at 6:44 pm, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256
Hi,
On 31/10/2014 6:24 PM, Avi Miller wrote:
On 31 Oct 2014, at 6:19 pm, Andrew McGlashan <andrew.mcglashan@affinityvision.com.au> wrote: Sorry, I did mean under a virtualization environment ... that makes a big difference.
We support most virtualization platforms including VMware, Hyper-V and Oracle VM. We also support most operating systems. Certification has also broaden to include RDBMS on Windows running on Hyper-V (with Oracle Linux certification on Hyper-V in progress). We even extended support on VMware to cover RAC from 11.2.0.3 and higher. Though, VMware support doesn't include certification.
So, the "certified" platforms have been widened, but are still limited?
I would have preferred that Oracle give Sun a good leg up, particularly since there are so many implementations out there that are Sun OS / Oracle based and over so many years -- instead, Sun become vulnerable and Oracle gobbled them up, rather than otherwise help them out.
We didn't gobble them up: Sun had to be sold, regardless. Oracle was the primary application on the SPARC platform so we were giving them as much support as we possibly could. Would you have preferred IBM to buy Sun? They were the front-runner for the acquisition for much longer than Oracle.
IBM don't have any hardware platform now, everything has been sold off.
So sad that Sun couldn't remain viable as Sun going forward.
I would also like to see ZFS have it's license terms changed so that it can be a real alternative to BTRFS for Linux, instead we need to go BSD to get the best benefits of ZFS.
ZFS is almost certainly never going to have its license changed: I'd rather focus on improving btrfs so that it negates the need for ZFS on Linux completely. Keep in mind that we started development on btrfs way before the Sun acquisition.
Well, I know the history of btrfs as well as ocfs -- I just wish I shared your view and that of Russell's that btrfs is the way to go moving forward, unfortunately I can't share your enthusiasm for it. I trust ZFS a great deal more than BTRFS.
Cheers A.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.22 (MingW32)
iF4EAREIAAYFAlRTPfoACgkQqBZry7fv4vskqQEAth6Pr9lQX6W9b9V4POo4iNC1 iNU/SuTjyzyPAfL+4jkA/AtXCvCM1MCkodlJfZSuxIrh0aTQ68Oydnmb1+BGMWkZ =q7AW -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list luv-main@luv.asn.au http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main