Report: Sun Open Storage

[Jim Tarvid]

For the file serving needs of the vast majority of small networks, how can
one justify more than an Apple Time Capsule?

On Wed, Nov 19, 2008 at 2:33 AM, Mark Schouten <mark at prevented.net> wrote:

> On Wed, 2008-11-19 at 06:27 +0900, Onno Benschop wrote:
> > I'm not saying that their solution is crap, I'm saying that they're
> > telling me one thing and offering me another. They're telling me the
> > machine is a real server, "it's running Open Solaris was the mantra",
> > but when I actually want to use it as a server (which personally I think
> > would be an excellent idea - and I'm interested to hear comment on
> > this), I void my support contract which makes no sense to me at all.
>
> So we're having a discussion on the Ubuntu server mailinglist, about how
> you misinterpreted a marketing line from Sun?
>
> > Ironically, the VMware issue came up and I suggested to the Sun engineer
> > in front of me at the time that if they actually had real VMware
> > certification, why didn't they offer to run appliances on the machine,
> > and amend the support contract to include something like this: "If your
> > problem is caused by your running VMware appliance, Sun support will be
> > unable to assist you, however, if when the appliance is stopped and the
> > issue persists, you'll receive full Sun support." - but I suspect that
> > it will be some time before we see something like that :-)
>
> ^^ Still missing the point of the box...
>
> > Which reminds me, there was no discussion about what happens to their
> > system during upgrade. There is a roll-back for upgrades, but there was
> > no discussion about what happens during the upgrade and no reference to
> > interoperability between clustered solutions either (other than to say
> > that interoperability was extremely closely tied to firmware versions
> > and OS versions), so there is no information on if two or more clustered
> > devices can run together with different versions, so you can reboot one
> > after an upgrade without turning off the cluster - I suspect "that's in
> > a future release".
> >
> > A final Ubuntu-server thought, the roll-back idea seemed like a really
> > cool thing that we could implement with a snap-shot. That is, do a
> > system-snap-shot before any upgrades leaving the ability to roll-back a
> > system if the upgrade had issues - of course little things like incoming
> > mail and database queries might be a problem, but if we deal with that
> > by separating the OS from the data (hmm, where did I hear that before
> > :), then we might have ourselves a feature that I know I'd use. Nothing
> > like doing an upgrade at midnight, having it fail and spending the next
> > 8 hours fixing it :)
>
> A dist-upgrade has never taken me more than two hours. Falling back to a
> snapshot is nice if you don't have (or take) the time to do your
> upgrade. But I'd rather fix the problem I see when upgrading than going
> back a snapshot and start of over again (running into the same issues).
>
> --
> Mark Schouten <mark at prevented.net>
>
>
> --
> ubuntu-server mailing list
> ubuntu-server at lists.ubuntu.com
> https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-server
> More info: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/ServerTeam
>



-- 
http://ls.net
http://drupal.ls.net
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-server/attachments/20081119/9b5c8d96/attachment.html>