[geeks] Anyone have exp. with NexentaStor (OpenSolaris-based ZFS NAS)?

[Lionel Peterson]

>From: Shannon Hendrix <shannon at widomaker.com>
>Date: 2008/05/25 Sun PM 10:43:27 EDT
>To: The Geeks List <geeks at sunhelp.org>
>Subject: Re: [geeks] Anyone have exp. with NexentaStor (OpenSolaris-based ZFS 
NAS)?

>On May 25, 2008, at 07:52 , Lionel Peterson wrote:
>
>> Subject line says it all - I stumbled across this the other day, and  
>> I was wondering if anyone here has any exp. with it...
>>
>> It looks like a decent idea - an OpenSolaris-based NAS that takes  
>> advantage of the ZFS filesystem and has a straight-forward  
>> "appliance-like" install with a full suite of GUI tools.
>>
>> Link: http://www.nexenta.com/
>>
>> Based on the derivative OpenSolaris NexentaOS project: 
http://www.nexenta.org/os/Home
>>
>> Link to Developer Edition (Like a drug dealer, the first (Terabyte  
>> of stored files) is free, additional TB will cost you:
>
>I would check and see if the licensing is enforced.
>
>If it is, then you could lose access to your storage over license  
>issues, and in my experience opinion, that's a show stopper on  
>reliability ratings for a product like this.

You shouldn't base any producion work on a "developer beta" of the software.

Also, you only lose if you exceed the license limit - the easiest way around 
that issue is to keep the maximum storage under 1 TB, say by keeping a lid on 
total disc capacity...

>Their FAQ says the license only affects:
>
>	1	CLI
>	2	GUI
>	3	all storage services
>	4	fault tolerance
>	5	all reports and operating statistics
>
>Your storage is still there of course until you fix the license issue.
>
>What bothers me about this:
>
>3) This could cripple your systems, and have far reaching consequences  
>if a lot of other systems and users are using the services

they offer unlimited storage option if you can"t constrain your usage to the 
license limits, and I think you can delete files until you are within licemse 
limits.

>4) This could also lead to serious issues if licensing fails and a  
>failure happens
>before you can fix the license issue.
>
>5) Even this one could cause you trouble if you have a mandatory  
>auditing requirement.  I've worked in shots were losing even a few  
>hours of reports was considered an audit failure unless it was out of  
>your control.
>
>Some shops would reject this software right off because of 3 and 4,  
>and some would even reject it because of 5.
>
>Personally, I would reject it because of 3, since ZFS still works and  
>that's the biggest part of fault tolerance I worry about.

really, aren't your issues with licensed software in general, not just this 
specific implementation? You should license what you need and stay within the 
limits...

Lionel