Linux.com

Feature: Unix

Solaris 10 ably equipped with fixes and features

By Jem Matzan on December 02, 2004 (8:00:00 AM)

Share    Print    Comments   

Last month I attended Sun's launch event for Solaris 10. Sun has put a tremendous amount of effort into its operating system, with the intention of rebuilding both its Unix market share and its relationship with free software developers. This article looks at the impressive new features that make Solaris 10 an amazing operating system and also some flaws that prevent it from being perfect.

Solaris is both the oldest and most modern Unix operating environment, but the previous few releases have been somewhat lacking in innovation. Solaris 10 makes up for that by introducing a wealth of new and innovative features that catapult it out of the traditional proprietary Unix market -- where HP, IBM, and SGI live -- and into the mainstream server and workstation market -- the realm of Microsoft, Novell, and Red Hat.

While I was talking to him about some historical Solaris bugs and if they've been fixed in version 10 or before (see below), Bryan Cantrill, one of the engineers responsible for the much acclaimed but seldom properly explained DTrace technology, happened to see a question I had written in my notebook: "Why is Solaris 10 'the most advanced operating system ever built' as claimed by various Sun representatives?"

Upon seeing that, Bryan started talking about DTrace and ZFS, and before he got to Containers, I stopped him. "A couple of good features don't make a whole OS. What's the big picture with Solaris 10?" I asked.

"Solaris 10 isn't just a couple of new things, it's a collection of great, new, unique features," he began. Jared Jenson, a consultant who works with Sun products, was also participating in the conversation and took over for Bryan. "For me, as a system administrator, Solaris 10 gives me a lot of what I call 'quality of life features.' By that I mean that Solaris makes life a lot better for the guys who have to wear the pagers -- you do your work more quickly, more efficiently, you find problems and fix them faster, and then you can go home to your family."

Here are some of the "quality of life features" in Solaris 10:

  • Dynamic Tracing (DTrace), a program and framework with an Awk-like command syntax that allows a sysadmin to quickly examine the behavior of the software environment from userland applications down to the most basic level
  • ZFS (formerly known as the Zettabyte File System; the term "zettabyte" has nothing to do with this file system, so its official yet meaningless name is now simply ZFS), which was written from the ground up to accommodate modern storage devices and redundancy solutions
  • Solaris Fault Management (also called Predictive Self-Healing), which is an integrated framework and analysis system that monitors data for abnormalities, then can isolate the malfunctioning device that is causing the corrupted data and route around it if possible. Since hardware failures are rarely instantaneous, Solaris Fault Management can detect failing hardware before the results become apparent to users.
  • Upgraded security: Instead of offering a separate distribution of Solaris for the Trusted Solaris product, Sun has added 80% of the integrated security features of Trusted Solaris to Solaris 10. Trusted Solaris 10 will still be available as a group of add-on packages to the standard Solaris operating environment.
  • Vendor-neutral support offerings: This means that, on the high end of its service plans, Sun will support Solaris, all software written for Solaris natively, and all LSB-compliant Linux binaries that users might run on Solaris 10 through the Linux Application Environment (formerly known as Project Janus).
  • Process Rights Management: This is a revised and updated permissions structure that allows specific users to have specific root permissions, so if several admins are controlling individual services on the same server, they can be given complete control over their processes and programs without having full root access to the system.

Let's look at some of the above features in more detail.

DTrace: More valuable than it may seem

I spoke with the core DTrace developers -- Bryan Cantrill, Adam Leventhal, and Mike Shapiro -- for about an hour at the Sun launch event, and they gave me a personal demonstration.

Cantrill had given a presentation in which the example situation was a serious network performance problem caused by a couple of users that were running inefficiently written stock ticker programs -- which were installed with GNOME by default. While this was an actual real-world example of how DTrace tracked down the problem, a top-notch sysadmin would never allow superfluous and potentially insecure programs in a critical production environment. So how would DTrace help on a more tightly controlled network?

Cantrill opened up his laptop computer, booted a recent development build of the AMD64 edition of Solaris Express, and proceeded with a high-energy demonstration of DTrace. First he showed me some broad DTrace output from the command line; it printed output from the more than 32,000 points of instrumentation (also called probes) that give feedback useful for tracking down problems. A traditional ps -a command would have shown only userland processes, which were related to the terminal.

"D, the language that DTrace uses, is a lot like Awk," he said as he opened up vi and created a short script to execute more complex DTrace commands. He then started the FVWM window manager and showed me everything the system does to open an instance of Xterm by adding a few lines to the aforementioned shell script to give DTrace the proper parameters and switches related to finding only Xterm-related activities. Cantrill noticed from the list of processes that data was being written to the disk upon starting Xterm. "That's unusual," he said, noting that there should be no reason to write to the disk at all. So he opened up the shell script again and modified it to find out why Xterm was behaving that way and what files it was writing to. The list that DTrace produced showed that the Bash history file was being written to upon launching Xterm -- so it turned out to be something perfectly normal. There were a few things that could have caused the disk write operation, and I'm sure if we'd had time to think about it we could have investigated it in the traditional way and found the answer, but DTrace produced specific results in seconds. This was a rather innocuous example because there was no problem to solve, but with some kind of mysterious performance-related problem, someone who knows DTrace could walk into a strange Solaris 10-based environment with machines and configurations he had never seen before and use it to track the problem down.

Granted, if you have to stop and read the manual and learn how to use D first, you're not going to track anything down quickly. If you already know Awk and are familiar with Solaris, DTrace shouldn't be very difficult to learn. Once you have even a moderate understanding of DTrace, on a large network with a lot of machines filled with various programs for various purposes, even if nothing seems wrong, you can fine-tune your Solaris environment by identifying inefficiencies.

More information about DTrace can be found at these addresses:

Some visualization tools are also in development that use DTrace as a foundation.

ZFS

Previously, SunOS employed the traditional and reliable but not quite top-performing Unix File System (UFS) as its one and only file system. Every Unix vendor and BSD variant has its own unique implementation of UFS, and few of them are fully compatible with one another. The trouble with UFS is that it is not terribly scalable; you can't add a hard drive to a RAID array and expect to easily expand your file system's capacity without losing data.

Rather than attempt to rework UFS to update it (as FreeBSD has, with UFS2), Sun's engineers designed a completely new file system technology that took into account modern computer hardware.

ZFS combines the functionality of a file system and a volume manager into one package, so it can control multiple disks without any additional software. It can also do more than just read and write blocks, which is the limit of a traditional file system's control. ZFS creates a "pool" of storage -- disks, presumably -- and then that storage is used for a dynamic file system when needed. So there is the underlying pool of storage, then on top of that are as many dynamic file systems as you want to create. If you need more space, just add a disk to the pool and you can grow the file system -- safely, with only a few commands in the terminal.

ZFS is also 128-bit, which is exponentially more spacious than most modern file systems, which are 64-bit. While it may seem unlikely that your storage needs will exceed the 64-bit limit of 16 exabytes, computer history is replete with examples of people underestimating growth.

The third primary feature of ZFS is its error-correction capabilities. Each write operation writes to a new block before changing the pointers to commit the write, making it possible to "roll back" data to a previous state. ZFS integrates checksums into the file system structure, which means that data corruption is detected immediately. If the file system is mirrored, ZFS can repair the corrupted data by using the mirrored copy without any user intervention.

Solaris Containers

While not specifically mentioned as a "quality of life feature" in Solaris 10, Containers are still an impressive and useful addition. Like ZFS, Solaris Containers have undergone a name revision; previously they were known alternately as "Zones" and "N1 Grid Containers," but due to changes in marketing strategy, the feature has been renamed Solaris Containers.

Like BSD jails, Solaris Containers isolate applications and processes from the rest of the system. You can do this for a number of reasons, including security, convenience, and server consolidation. Containers also have superior performance and resource efficiency over a more common alternative, virtual machines, which require an entirely separate instance of the operating system for each virtual unit. Containers use the same kernel and memory that the underlying OS does, and do not reserve any part of these resources. This means that every Container on a system has a single point of failure because they are all using the same kernel. Sun claims that a system can have more than 8,000 Containers, but it's hard to imagine a scenario in which a number that high would be useful, or a system on which they could run without a significant loss in performance.

Realistically, Solaris Containers are most useful for creating virtual hosts and servers that can perform a variety of separate network tasks in one machine instead of several. You could have your DNS, LDAP, and DHCP servers running in separate Containers, all acting as independent systems. Since each Container can have its own IP address, you could also use Containers for separate hosting accounts on a shared Web server.

New and improved?

Prior to the launch event I got some suggestions from Solaris sysadmins who had specific problems with previous versions of Solaris and had switched to other operating systems where they could. I took the issues mentioned in this SysAdmin to SysAdmin column and the comment attached to it, plus some other notes, and compiled the following list of issues, which several Solaris engineers addressed point by point:

  • Solaris is too complex. This was described by the Solaris hackers as being an engineering problem that has been solved by introducing better technology -- namely, DTrace to replace other less specific command-line tools, X.org to replace the aging Xsun server, a more streamlined installation procedure, and better documentation. "Documentation is never an afterthought for us," Cantrill told me.
  • If a user belongs to more than 15 groups, the system dies. Cantrill told me that this has long been a tunable parameter in Solaris. "Such that it exists at all, the limitation is due to a protocol restriction in NFS. By default, Solaris is configured to cooperate with other vendors' NFS implementations -- which means setting the number of supplementary groups to 15."
  • NIS netgroups have a size limitation; this forces messy netgroups. This is due to an underlying DBM database issue; the database has a size limit of 1,024 bytes. The best solution is to use LDAP instead.
  • If one machine is in two netgroups and both groups have mount privileges, the NFS server crashes. The Solaris engineers tested this and didn't find the problem; furthermore they had no record of this ever being a bug or problem with any previous editions of Solaris.
  • GNOME is poorly implemented. GNOME support has been greatly improved in Solaris 10. The version that ships with the initial release is 2.6.1, and it now uses the Java Desktop System theme by default.
  • The version of Netscape included with Solaris is old. Sun has abandoned Netscape in favor of Mozilla.
  • Solaris has a poor LDAP implementation. A great deal of work has gone into improving LDAP in Solaris 10. The new implementation is of a much higher quality and has expanded features over previous Solaris implementations.
  • If you set up the system to authenticate to NIS, then start LDAP, the system crashes. This bug has been fixed in Solaris 10.
  • Solaris is slow. Solaris 10 includes an optimized TCP/IP stack, which now scales much better on multi-CPU systems. Additionally, Solaris 10 has specific performance enhancements for UltraSPARC IIIi and IV systems that can increase performance by as much as 20%.

The catches

Solaris 10's unique features are only useful if the operating system will install and run on your computer. Sun is not known for supporting a lot of x86 hardware, and Solaris 10 does not alter that reputation. You're pretty much limited to the hardware in the hardware compatibility list; I've tried to get several different custom-built systems to work with Solaris Express over the past few months, and none of them has functioned fully, with the usual suspects being ATI video cards and integrated LAN chips. Unlike previous releases, Solaris 10 supports a fairly wide range of UltraSPARC hardware -- especially systems that use the newer IIIi and IV processors. The 64-bit AMD64 edition of Solaris 10 will not be available for another few months.

Solaris 10 will not tolerate Linux partitions on the same drive, so if you want to dual boot, you'll need a separate hard drive. Speaking of hard drives, I was not able to get an SATA hard drive to be recognized by Solaris Express 10/04 on any of my test systems. Sun told me that Solaris 10 would eventually have SATA support, but didn't have specific dates or details on which SATA controllers would be supported.

While Solaris 10's official release is January 2005, it will not initially ship with ZFS functionality. ZFS instead will be included in the first update.

Conclusions

If you're using a previous edition of Solaris -- especially if you're using a SPARC-based infrastructure -- it makes a lot of sense to upgrade to Solaris 10 if your hardware supports it. To begin with, it's free of charge to download and use it, so the initial cost is nothing. Considering the potential performance increase and such advanced features as ZFS and DTrace, your benefits could include better data reliability and storage scalability, and the ability to track down and eliminate software problems immediately.

If you're considering a new operating system for your business, Solaris is definitely a candidate. I'd recommend sticking to the hardware compatibility list, and specifically buying only systems that have been certified to work with Solaris 10.

Many people will wonder, "Is Solaris 10 better than Red Hat Enterprise Server 3, Windows Server 2003, and SUSE Linux Enterprise Server 9?" Under most conditions the answer is yes, thanks to the above-mentioned features that are unique to Solaris 10. While SLES9 has Usermode Linux to do operating system virtualization, it requires assigned system resources and doesn't offer optimal performance. Solaris Containers require only storage (hard drive) space to work and don't suck up as much system resources, making this feature more efficient while providing similar functionality. ReiserFS v4 may be a significant step forward for Linux file systems, but looking through the feature list on its Web site, I don't see anything like the ability to add storage space dynamically or integrated checksums to protect against data corruption. ReiserFS v4 is also not 128-bit, so its ceiling is much lower than that of ZFS. DTrace has no equivalent anywhere, as far as I can tell.

It seems that Solaris 10 is a superior operating environment for servers and some kinds of workstations, and Sun's support options for it are quite ambitious. The only things that hold it back are restrictive licensing and horrible hardware support, but the licensing will soon change as Solaris goes open source, and hardware support is bound to increase as time goes on.

Originally published on The Jem Report, edited and reprinted with permission.

Share    Print    Comments   

Comments

on Solaris 10 ably equipped with fixes and features

Note: Comments are owned by the poster. We are not responsible for their content.

Why hype?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2004 04:29 AM
Let's all just pitch products that don't exist made by companies that are against open source and Linux.

Anyone writing a review on how wonderful Longhorn will be?

I've said this before and I will say it again. Stop telling me about things that don't yet exist like the fictional "open source" Solaris 10 and Longhorn.

Tell me about real products that are really open source.

Here is Sun's catch 22. If they release their product as real open source (freedom source) then they won't be able to stop Linux from implimenting it. Then their competition has what they have.

If they don't then they still can't touch what their competition has. (Freedom)

I won't believe they have swallowed the bitter pill until I see the license myself and until then they are just another company sticking to their proprietary restrictive world.

So back to the original question, why is NewsForge "The Online Newspaper for Linux and Open Source" hyping a product that is not Linux or Open Source?

Is it part of an advertising deal?

-Chris

#

Re:Why hype?

Posted by: nexex on December 03, 2004 06:57 AM
oh please you know solaris is going open source after the launch of version 10

#

define "open source"

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2004 07:57 AM
Fine, Solaris 10 will go open source for some definition of open source. Will Sun's definition of open source match the community definiton of open source? Will it be OSI approved? Will it be "look but don't compile" list MS's shared source? Will it be under NDA or competition restrictions?

So please, if you know Sun's definition of open source, share it.

#

Re:define "open source"

Posted by: Curtman on December 03, 2004 09:21 AM
Will it be OSI approved?



That's what they have promised. If they end up going back on that promise now, they will look very foolish. I believe they are sincere about wanting to "get back to their roots", I'm just not so sure they understand what makes the open source community flourish, especially given the foolish things their CEO says to the press these days.

#

Re:define "open source"

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 04, 2004 03:07 AM
There is only *one* definition of open source, and that happens to be the one here:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php

If it doesn't fit that, it's not open source, period. And yes, Sun is looking for OSI approval. They can't call it open source unless they do that because "open source" is a trade marked name (by the OSI) that can only be applied to software which the OSI says.

Cheers,
Daniel.

#

Re:Why hype?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2004 08:20 AM
Sun has contributed more code to open source than any other corporation out there. Period.

Sun has a poor PR/management setup, so they send conflicting views. Overall, they don't like redhat. Linux is fine, but inferior in their minds to Solaris(which is accurate for Solaris' core market of highend production machines).

Linux could use inspired code, ofcourse. But Sun can also do the same. Furthermore, Linux couldn't just port dtrace, the kernels are too different. They could use it as a blueprint though.

Sun has conitnually, at all levels, promised for a forkable OSI-compiant license.

#

YES!! - Thank you.

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 04, 2004 06:51 AM
Finally someone who did research. Thanks to Sun's idiotic PR, people think that Sun doesn't contribute to open source, even though they are the #1 open source contributor after UC Berkely.

OpenOffice.org *alone* is enough to win the #1 spot. OOo is over 7 million lines of code. About twice as large as the 2.4 kernel, and still bigger than the 2.6 kernel. OOo is bigger than KDE and Gnome put together.

But of course, there is more. Sun has contributed a lot to Gnome, and they are one of the 2 companies that maintain X at the highest level (the other is HP).

Sun also has the strongest history of open standards of any company.

Also, yes, they don't like Red Hat. Really, why should they care about Mandrake, Linspire, Debian, or the others? Those distros are not targeting the same market that Sun is. They are not competitors. Red Hat is.

I notice that they don't mention Novell/SUSE, even though, AFAIK, SUSE is also a competitor in that market. My theory is that this is PR. Red Hat is easier to pick on because RH has done a lot of things that go against the open source philosophy. On the other hand, Novell/SUSE has generally done well, and is now doing better (after Novell openned Ximian Connector and Yast).

Just my $0.02

Cheers,
Daniel Carrera.
OpenOffice.org volunteer.

#

Re:YES!! - Thank you.

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 05, 2004 12:15 AM
Bigger is better? Why using such idiotic metrics? As OO addressed the limit of 32.000 cels in the spreadsheet for example? Sun doesn't like linux, because can't get control over it. Period.

#

Re:YES!! - Thank you.

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 05, 2004 02:58 AM
Bigger is better? Why using such idiotic metrics?

I said Sun is the largest open source contributor after UC Berkley. This is true.

As OO addressed the limit of 32.000 cels in the spreadsheet for example?

Yes, fixed in the development build.<nobr> <wbr></nobr>:-)

Sun doesn't like linux, because can't get control over it. Period.

Heh. So much for a reasoned argument.

Cheers,
Daniel.

#

show us the facts

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 06, 2004 01:54 PM
"RH has done a lot of things that go against the open source philosophy. " Like what? You can get all source code for all of their products. All Red Hat versions clear back to the first one can still be downloaded. Their user manuals are posted online. They have done more to see that developers actually get paid than anyone else, and have done more to promote and popularize Linux than anyone else.

I am quite tired of baseless Red Hat bashing. Put up some facts, or shush. They are not my favorite distribution, but I hate seeing such nonsense being perpetrated.

Sun is in bed with Microsoft. Sun supports SCO. Sun preaches "open standards, not open code." So tell me who is really "against the open source philosophy."

#

Re:show us the facts

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 07, 2004 01:30 AM
<em>"RH has done a lot of things that go against the open source philosophy. " Like what?</em>

Hey, I don't mean that RedHat is evil or anything. I probably should have said "things that bother many in the FOSS community". That'd be more accurate. I was thinking of breaking compatibility (e.g. file structure, config files, libraries, KDE) that annoy people. I've heard from several people who have met with Red Hat and they see Red Hat pushing how many people are trained *only* for Red Hat.

<em>Sun is in bed with Microsoft.</em>

Evidence?
What happened was that Sun gave Microsoft a punch in the stomach, and now people who don't stop to look up what happened think that they sold out. I keep hearing people saying that Microsoft "invested" in Sun and crap like that. This was a *lawsuit* people. Sun sued MS for anti-competitive practices, and MS gave in. Ok?

<em>Sun preaches "open standards, not open code." So tell me who is really "against the open source philosophy."</em>

One thing I perhaps didn't make clear in my post. I don't mean to say that Sun is fantastic and RedHat is evil.

I *agree* that RedHat is *more* open source than Sun. I was not disputing that. I was disputing the extremist claims that I see around. Sun does have a lot of merit. They have contributed a lot more to open source than Red Hat has (measured in code). It has a long history of open standards.I agree that this is not the same as open source, but it does beat every other traditional Unix company in its history of openness.

What I'm trying to say here is lets' be reasonable and look at the facts.

Cheers,
Daniel.

#

Re:Why hype?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2004 08:51 AM
You can go to <A HREF="http://www.sun.com/solarisexpress/" title="sun.com">http://www.sun.com/solarisexpress/</a sun.com> and download the beta for solaris 10 today (and in fact it's been available for quite some time). They are releasing public betas every month with new features and enhancements. The only major features missing at this point are ZFS and Janus. Dtrace, containers, 64-bit support for AMD processors, fault management, X.org, mozilla, are all integrated into the 11/04 beta, are all there today.

As for the license, they've publically stated it will be OSI-compliant, it's just a matter of which license. If they fail to come through, then yes they will deserve scorn, and will no doubt recieve lots of it.

And yes, if it is opensource, then Linux can potentially integrate the features from Solaris. This of course assumes any integration is blessed by Linus for it to get into most of the major distributions (which may or may not happen, and even if it does, it'll probably not happen right away). It also doesn't preclude the possibility of Solaris being able to also take features from Linux (assuming the licenses are compatible of course). Either way, more competition should allow both OSes to improve.

#

X server

Posted by: nexex on December 03, 2004 06:59 AM

X.org to replace the aging Xsun server


I read that X.org was only going in the x86 versions, is it also replacing the sparc version of Xsun?

#

Dtrace -vs- strace?

Posted by: Curtman on December 03, 2004 09:08 AM
I've heard all kinds of great things about dtrace, but what I haven't heard is what sets it apart from strace? Is it the scripting capabilities? Because we've got bash/awk/etc for that already.

#

Re:Dtrace -vs- strace?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2004 02:34 AM
strace is closer to the old solaris tool truss -- it just looks at systems calls (with a few options). While dtrace can do this with in a line or two of code, that's just scratching the surface of what dtrace can do. Dtrace allows you to really look into the system to see what's going on both in the kernel as well as in uderland.

The best way to really understand it is to read the documentation (or at least look at the examples). <A HREF="http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-6223" title="sun.com">http://docs.sun.com/app/docs/doc/817-6223</a sun.com> You'll be amazed the things that can be analyized with minimal overhead and with a very small amount of scripting

#

So ZFS...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 03, 2004 01:29 PM

... is a filesystem and a volume manager. Ho hum. Digital UNIX/Tru64 has had this in AdvFS (as well as striping at the file level if desired, file system clone, etc.) for some years now. Going on ten, if memory serves. OK, ZFS is 128-bit and everyone has been screaming for that, right? Yah, right.

Too bad Dtrace chose Awk, a dying language if there ever was one, as their model for its language. Of the thousands of scripts that I've encountered in the past 20 years or so in the UNIX field, only a handful have been written in awk. (And those are so fragile that no one wants to attempt changes to them.) Perhaps Dtrace really is the greatest tool since the wedge but, geez, do they think sysadmins really want to learn another language? Once Perl came along, most of those old Awk scripts were forgotten about and I say good riddance.

Jem's comments regarding Solaris's complexity are apropos. The OS has got to simplify somehow or it's going to implode on itself.

#

D isn't based on awk

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2004 02:27 AM

It's awk-like. It's also C-like. Honestly, if you know Perl or if you can write a shell script, you can learn D really fast.



Here's a quick example of what I mean:

<TT>#!/usr/sbin/dtrace -s
vminfo:::pgin
{
        @[pid, execname] = count();
}</TT>



That will print out a histogram of what processes are causing pageins.

#

Re:So ZFS...

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 07, 2004 08:32 AM
Too bad HP just put a bullet in AdvFS... see <A HREF="http://blogs.sun.com/roller/page/jonathan/20041203" title="sun.com">Sun's blog</a sun.com>.

#

No dual boot ?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2004 12:53 AM
At a time when boot managers are produced by individuals, Sun engineers are still unable to accomplish the same feat. Who else does the same stupid thing ? Oh yeah, it's Microsoft. Considering the newly found love between Sun and Microsoft, it's no wonder those two share a few bad habits. Don't these guys have any shame at all ?
Another point of contention is the Solaris versus Trusted Solaris stuff. Why such a double standard ? For years, the customers who didn't buy Trusted Solaris weren't entitled to the same security as those who paid for it, as if malware writers made that kind of distinction before launching attacks.

#

Re:No dual boot ?

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 04, 2004 03:02 AM
Huh? Since when do you dual-boot servers? Or even workstations on an enterprise network?
.
Solaris is not intended for home use.
.
Daniel

#

dual-boot support is a must-have

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 06, 2004 01:45 PM
I dual-boot Linux servers all the time in my test lab. it's better than buying a zillion computers and trying to find space for them. windoze servers won't dual-boot either, which is just plain stupid. The bootloader has nothing to do with anything but starting up the bloody thing, it doesn't affect server functions at all.

And ya know, it's really not up to you or Sun or microshaft to judge what users want to do with their machines. If I decide I want a dual-boot production server, cool beans for me. Not your business, nor microsoft's, nor sun's.

#

Re:dual-boot support is a must-have

Posted by: Daniel Carrera on December 07, 2004 01:34 AM
Maybe I misunderstood. Is Sun doing anything to prevent you from dual booting?

#

Improved native LDAP?

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 04, 2004 02:44 AM
I sure hope so, and easier to set up in a reasonably secure fashion, and easier to administer, than on Solaris 9.

Gee, maybe Microsoft is helping Sun, since they make it pretty easy to set up a client system on Active Directory, whatever else you might think of MS or AD.

#

Different blanket, same pig

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 08, 2004 09:32 AM
Red Hat's system also beat Solaris on performance, Stein said.

Red Hat's system also beat Solaris on performance, Stein said.

Red Hat's system also beat Solaris on performance, <A HREF="http://www.computerweekly.com/articles/article.asp?liArticleID=135557&liArticleTypeID=1&liCategoryID=1&liChannelID=9&liFlavourID=1&sSearch=&nPage=1" title="computerweekly.com">Stein said</a computerweekly.com>.

#

Re:Different blanket, same pig

Posted by: Anonymous Coward on December 10, 2004 12:10 PM
Solaris what? 8? 9? 10?

I've been playing with 10, and its noticably faster than 9. It feels, subjectively, something like 30% faster. X is snappier, apps start up quicker. Same hardware as my 9 instance (using vmware). Plus, performance isnt the reason why corps buy software, its support and applications. Stuff like zones enables you to really utilize your box. That goes to things like TCO and ROI, which are REALLY important.

#

Solaris 10 ably equipped with fixes and features

Posted by: Anonymous [ip: 78.2.55.234] on January 09, 2008 08:33 PM
People still not understand... they have the OS of the future on today`s desks ... and is all there ... and right now ... only needs to be taken ... uh yes for FREE ... linux, wins and even mac`s just can`t do nothing about it ... this is reality ... in few years Solaris will take more than 50% of whole IT market, from desktops to enterprises, why ? because is too ingenuos, SUN is too much ahead with this one, it`s only 1 product for endless range of small PC`s to big enterprise servers, just 1, and this is only the beginning ... Solaris is not for smart asez that just want play with something like kids ... it`s for people of tomorrow, with bright and clear ideas of what they must do in less time, with maximum of efficency, with pleasure and comfort, with smile on their faces, business done right - that`s Solaris. You even not must compare endless speed graphs and cpu times, you just don`t - because don`t mathers anymore, today Solaris is so much more than raw performance drawn on paper, this is something else ... Cheers

#

This story has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.



 
Tableless layout Validate XHTML 1.0 Strict Validate CSS Powered by Xaraya