Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
Linux Employees of Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory have ported Sun's/Oracle's ZFS natively to Linux. Linux already had a ZFS port in userspace via FUSE, since license incompatibilities between the CDDL and GPL prevent ZFS from becoming part of the Linux kernel. This project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves.
Order by: Score:
ZFS for Linux definitive good
by churlish_Helmut on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:20 UTC
churlish_Helmut
Member since:
2010-04-12

Porting ZFS to Linux is definitve a good effort. Seriously, i think that the ZFS is one of superior items of Solaris and should be ported.

Especially for the fact that OpenSolaris 10.06 ... err. . .i mean 10.07 will be the last release of this OS.

But the way how to get ZFS to Linux is to complicated, especially for the common user, who maybe is not really interested in ZFS. So the license should be changed; So, what about the Linux Kernel under CDDL ? ;-)

Reply Score: 0

RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by flanque on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:37 UTC in reply to "ZFS for Linux definitive good"
flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Some of the great things about Solaris are ZFS, LiveUpgrade, dtrace, zones, SMF and SVM... in my view.

Reply Score: 2

bnolsen Member since:
2006-01-06

have zfs's stbility problems been fixed yet?

Reply Score: 2

flanque Member since:
2005-12-15

Long fixed.

Reply Score: 2

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

ZFS has stability problems? I didnt knew that, and I have used ZFS since the very first beginning.

You are just Trolling, right?

Reply Score: 4

Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

Or you have been lucky not to encounter an issue yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by renox on Mon 7th Jun 2010 12:56 UTC in reply to "ZFS for Linux definitive good"
renox Member since:
2005-07-06

Porting ZFS to Linux is definitve a good effort.


Bah, until ZFS is made available by Oracle in a GPL-compatible license, I consider the port to be a waste of time: as long as ZFS isn't integrated into the kernel it won't have proper testing and it won't have enough users..
A good example of this is ReiserFS4: not being accepted in the main kernel did reduce its adoption.

Reply Score: 3

ReiserFS4
by s_groening on Mon 7th Jun 2010 18:39 UTC in reply to "RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good"
s_groening Member since:
2005-12-13

... Presumably alongside these 'details' concerning ReiserFS author Hans Reiser's where abouts on Sept. 3, 2006:

http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2008/08/its-the-least-p/

Reply Score: 1

vonbrand Member since:
2010-06-07

The ReiserFS 4 fiasko was mostly due to the whole design behind it being a big, unimplementable mess. Sure, for toy cases it did work; but for corner cases it just couldn't.

Reply Score: 0

zlynx Member since:
2005-07-20

The ReiserFS 4 fiasko was mostly due to the whole design behind it being a big, unimplementable mess. Sure, for toy cases it did work; but for corner cases it just couldn't.


I wonder what corner cases you are thinking of? I used Reiser4 as the primary filesystem for my laptop for over two years and it did everything I needed.

Reply Score: 3

RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by nalf38 on Tue 8th Jun 2010 03:59 UTC in reply to "ZFS for Linux definitive good"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

Good idea, but impossible. This was suggested when GPL3 came out. Everyone who ever contributed to the linux kernel would have to give their consent to change the license.

Reply Score: 1

RE: ZFS for Linux definitive good
by Fri13 on Tue 8th Jun 2010 19:12 UTC in reply to "ZFS for Linux definitive good"
Fri13 Member since:
2009-09-22

The SunOS is not going to have a last version in OpenSolaris. It will definetly continue in Solaris. Oracle has no reasons to kill SunOS, even then if they want to stop OpenSolaris.

And Linux OS can not be relicensed, even if wanted. It is on GLPv2 and stays as such because there is just too many copyright owners for it to get them all accept the licesen change. That is one great thing what is keeping Linux not having GPLv3 even if Linus would wanted the OS have it. GNU need to have their own OS, the HURD to be the only GPLv3 licensed OS if wanted.

Think about it if Linux has over 50 000 copyright owners code in it. To change Linux OS license from GPLv2 to GPLv2 or later / GPLv3 (or later), it would need so massive job to get all 50 000 copyright owners to accept that change. And if there is very critical code what is only accepted to be in GPLv2, the code should be rewritten from scratch without using the old code at all, even as example.

Linux OS stays under GPLv2 and only way to get ZFS as native filesystem to it is to get it as module or use FUSE. The module is not problem because GPLv2 allows Linux OS being expanded with binary only modules. That is something what GPLv3 would not allow. And because Linux is modular, even it is a monolithic operating system, it is possible to do. Just like 3rd parties are doing it, like Nvidia.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence
Member since:
2007-03-26

This project solves the licensing issue by distributing ZFS as a separate kernel module users will have to download and build for themselves.


Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still breaking the licensing terms? I mean, is there not still CDDL code in a GPL kernel?
Sure, this project solves the risk for distros, but the end user now becomes the one liable.

Or have I completely missed the point?

Reply Score: 3

ssam Member since:
2006-03-12

i guess it similar to the case with binary drivers.

Reply Score: 1

Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

Well, binary drivers are a bit of a grey area anyway:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linux_kernel#Loadable_kernel_modules_a...

Reply Score: 2

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26



Erm, can you clarify: You think both myself and the guys developing the port are missing the point because of the link you've supplied?

If that's what you're suggesting, then you've missed the point more than all 3 of us.
That link is the FUSE port which everyone has already acknowledged exists. However FUSE isn't native (as already mentioned in the article) and has it's own set of problems (performance being the biggest).

Reply Score: 2

coolvibe Member since:
2007-08-16

No, that link is the GRUB support for ZFS, which will yield read-only support for ZFS and is GPLv2. Surely, code can be taken from there to implement mainline- kernel ZFS which is free from license brouhaha.

Reply Score: 1

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

No, that link is the GRUB support for ZFS, which will yield read-only support for ZFS and is GPLv2. Surely, code can be taken from there to implement mainline- kernel ZFS which is free from license brouhaha.

Ahh yes sorry.
I don't know how the hell I missed that lol.


Interesting though. I'd forgotten that GRUB was GPL.

Reply Score: 2

Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

Only if you redistribute it. The GPL only put restrictions on distribution, not usage. If you add the ZFS module to your own system it's ok but then you may not, for example, distribute a HDD image of that system.

Reply Score: 7

Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Only if you redistribute it. The GPL only put restrictions on distribution, not usage. If you add the ZFS module to your own system it's ok but then you may not, for example, distribute a HDD image of that system.


I see.

Thanks for the clarification

Reply Score: 2

SteveB Member since:
2005-07-10

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still breaking the licensing terms? I mean, is there not still CDDL code in a GPL kernel?
Sure, this project solves the risk for distros, but the end user now becomes the one liable.

Or have I completely missed the point?

Yes. you miss the point. It is not allowed to distribute a Kernel that has ZFS build into it. The reason is that you can not mix CDDL and GPL code. But an end user can patch her/his Kernel with the ZFS code and compile a Kernel and use that Kernel without breaking the license.

So only the distribution of a build Kernel is not allowed but running a patched Kernel is no violation of the licensing terms.

Reply Score: 2

dragSidious Member since:
2009-04-17

> Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this still breaking the licensing terms?

No.

> I mean, is there not still CDDL code in a GPL kernel?

Yes.

And CDDL is incompatible with the GPL.

The reason it's legal is because GPL is a copyright license. Copyright is limited in scope, by constitutional law, to 'derivative works'.

"Derivative works" is a term encoded into copyright law that limits the rights of copyright owners to only items they created and items created from what they created.

That is if I write a poem and you write a poem my copyrights on my poem does not affect the copyrights on your poem.

'DUH', right?

That is what is happening here.

The code for the Linux ZFS driver is derived from Oracle's copyrighted code. The only legal grounds for using that code is under the CDDL license. So thus it's governed by the CDDL because it's derived work from the Solaris kernel.

But the process of modifying it for compatibility to the Linux kernel does NOT mean that the it's now derived from the Linux kernel. If there is no code from Linux in the Linux ZFS driver then the source code is legally distributable under the CDDL license and thus is not affected by the GPL license.

So it's legal to distribute in SOURCE CODE FORM. Its still pure CDDL licensed/derived.

Once you compile it into a kernel module, however, then the driver 'sucks in' Linux kernel code as part of the compilation process.

Thus, in binary format, because it incorporates both Linux and Solaris code then the actual finished driver will be derived from both CDDL'd and from GPL'd code.

Since they are incompatible there is no legal standing for you to redistribute it. Since they null each other out then there is no legal standing for your use of it. Hence it would be a violateion of copyright law for you to redistributed the finished binary driver.



The reason it's legal for you to USE the combined Linux/Solaris code and NOT be able to distribute it... is because the GPL only kicks in during distribution.

The GPL intentionally limits itself to situations were your distributing the code (in binary or source code format) to third parties.

As long as your only using it yourself then the GPL has ZERO affect over your usage. It's actually freer then the BSD license in this respect. You can treat it like it's public domain and combine it with whatever code you want. There is ZERO restrictions on GPL usage.

GPL ONLY AFFECTS DISTRIBUTION. Not usage.


TLDR:

* The driver is being distributed in source code format.

* The source code format does not include any GPL'd software or Linux derived software. It's only designed to be compatible with the Linux kernel.

* So the GPL does not restrict it because it does not affect it.

* GPL only affects distribution, not usage. There are ZERO restrictions at all on usage.

* Downloading the source code and compiling it with the Linux kernel makes it legally usable, but illegally distributable.

Reply Score: 4

brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:48 UTC
vivainio
Member since:
2008-12-26

We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

ZFS seems to be the betamax of file systems already.

Reply Score: 1

RE: brtfs
by Lennie on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:55 UTC in reply to "brtfs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

By the time they get a solid working module for the Linux kernel of ZFS (the FreeBSD-hackers took years to get it right), I'm pretty sure btrfs will already have matured quiet nicely. But with Linux betting on several horses isn't unusual.

Reply Score: 7

v RE[2]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:10 UTC in reply to "RE: brtfs"
RE[3]: brtfs
by foobar17294 on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
foobar17294 Member since:
2010-06-07

Say "enterprise" ONE MORE TIME! I dare you!

"Enterprise" refers to software developed on a schedule with managers dictating the necessary set of features, and then engineers adapting to that. Functionality that there is no time to redesign will remain forever as kludges.

btrfs will succeed exactly because it isn't "enterprise". The software is evolved naturally, with no deadlines and no managers to dictate a set of features. Functionality that is consistent and sound from an engineering perspective gets implemented. Functionality that isn't, will be sent back to the drawing board until it is, or never implemented at all.

And yes, many btrfs developers have a long experience working with file systems.

tl;dr: btrfs is ZFS done right. btrfs is to ZFS as Linux is to Solaris.

Reply Score: 0

RE[4]: brtfs
by dvzt on Tue 8th Jun 2010 07:33 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

Say "enterprise" ONE MORE TIME! I dare you!

"Enterprise" refers to software developed on a schedule with managers dictating the necessary set of features, and then engineers adapting to that. Functionality that there is no time to redesign will remain forever as kludges.

btrfs will succeed exactly because it isn't "enterprise". The software is evolved naturally, with no deadlines and no managers to dictate a set of features. Functionality that is consistent and sound from an engineering perspective gets implemented. Functionality that isn't, will be sent back to the drawing board until it is, or never implemented at all.

And yes, many btrfs developers have a long experience working with file systems.

tl;dr: btrfs is ZFS done right. btrfs is to ZFS as Linux is to Solaris.


My god, your post is so funny (and wrong in every sentence) I can't even think of what to respond. You know about Solaris because you read about it once in a Linux magazine, right?

Reply Score: 3

RE[4]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Tue 8th Jun 2010 10:29 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Say "enterprise" ONE MORE TIME! I dare you!

Enter... Enterpr... Hm. No, I dont dare to say the Enterprise word again, because then you might get angry. And I dont want to make you angry for saying Enterprise.


btrfs will succeed exactly because it isn't "enterprise". The software is evolved naturally,..

Just like the horrible broken mess that Linux sound API is? If that is the case, then BTRFS will never succeed.


And yes, many btrfs developers have a long experience working with file systems.

Yes, but not Enterprise experience. Oops, now I used that word again. Sorry for that.

Look. Let me explain some things to you, my young padawan learner. As someone explained: "A filesystem is far more sensitive than a kernel. If the kernel crashes, you will loose a couple of hours of work. If the filesystem crashes you loose several years of work. The filesystem is the nervous system, the skeleton of the OS. If that is bad, the rest sucks"



To get the filesystem bug free is very important. Everyone (including the Linux kernel hackers) agrees that Linux kernel is full of bugs and a mess. This approach can work on a kernel. But for a file system, it will not work. Then it has to be good coded and well designed. Which ext3, JFS, reiserfs, etc are not. You want proof?



This bad design shows up in Linux filesystem's abilities to detect and correct errors: they all suck badly. They can not even detect nor correct basic errors. Whereas ZFS detects and corrects everything. To do this well, takes lots of experience from Enterprise file systems. Those BTRFS amateur filesystem developers, know nothing about this problem "silent corruption". It is only faced in large Enterprise storage halls, just like Sun have vast experience from.

You can not just add some checksums here and there, and expect everything to be well. No, the filesystem must be built from the ground up, with respect to detect and correct all errors. This is EXTREMELY difficult to do well. If not careful, there are always errors you can not detect, if you just use a naive approach. For instance, raid-5, raid-6, ext3, jfs, reiserfs, etc - can not handle all kind of errors. Computer scientists have done research on this and proved it. They also tried to stress ZFS too, but ZFS detected every artificial error, and could have repaired all errors if the scientists had used raid. In the experiment, they ran ZFS on a single disc, so ZFS could not correct every error, but it detected them. Linux didnt even detect the errors, how can Linux then correct them? Impossible. You want proof and research papers on this?

Let me say this again. BTRFS is a cheap ZFS wannabe. It is not designed as well as ZFS. It has no focus on data integrity and silent corruption. It has nothing, just basic ZFS functionality. With Linux unstructured approach, BTRFS will not be stable. As usual, the code will be rewritten all the time, introducing new bugs. BTRFS will never catch up on ZFS. Do you really expect ZFS to stand still, and paus development? No. Instead of copying ZFS, why dont Linux guys try to make a new cool tech, instead of copying Solaris all the time? DTrace copies exist, but they are as bad as BTRFS is to ZFS. Every OS wants Solaris tech like DTrace, ZFS, etc.


btrfs is ZFS done right. [q]btrfs is to ZFS as Linux is to Solaris.

If that is the case, then there are no worries. Because then BTRFS will be buggy and bloated and scale bad. Good to hear.

Reply Score: 4

RE[5]: brtfs
by Lennie on Sat 12th Jun 2010 23:42 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
Lennie Member since:
2007-09-22

I wasn't saying it would catch-up, I was saying a stable filesystem, something people can rely on in a production environment as much as ext3 of ext4, but with more checksums.

Maybe not in as many places as ZFS yet, but it will be something which can be maintained by the same people that build the rest of kernel. And it can be distributed normally together with the rest of the kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: brtfs
by Zifre on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
Zifre Member since:
2009-10-04

I really hope you are joking. Because you are a troll of the greatest order.

I really don't think that your post has a single fact in it. And you're also forgetting that Btrfs is from Oracle, who have plenty of experience in so called "enterprise storage".

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: brtfs
by nalf38 on Tue 8th Jun 2010 04:03 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

yeah, those 'amateurs' over at f***ing ORACLE don't know how to make a filesystem.

Do your research before making a post like that.

Reply Score: 3

RE: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 12:03 UTC in reply to "brtfs"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

ZFS seems to be the betamax of file systems already.


Are you actually going to elaborate on that point or just leave it there in what some might view as a tolling argument?

Aside for better Linux support - I've not seen anything in BtrFS that's swayed my to switch from ZFS.

But I'm completely open to reason, so please explain away ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:22 UTC in reply to "RE: brtfs"
fepede Member since:
2005-11-14

"We are currently starting to see btrfs (also developed by Oracle btw ;-) gaining traction.

ZFS seems to be the betamax of file systems already.


Are you actually going to elaborate on that point or just leave it there in what some might view as a tolling argument?

Aside for better Linux support - I've not seen anything in BtrFS that's swayed my to switch from ZFS.

But I'm completely open to reason, so please explain away ;)
"

I do agree with the first poster, and these are my points: ZFS and BTRFS are very similar feature wise, but BTRFS is achieving a lot of attention and support from the Linux community (and some first appearence on the "enterprise" side with RHEL 6 as an "experimental" feature).

So, I'll guess that BTRFS will be accepted as a solid and reliable solution soon, while ZFS will be a lot behind.

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?

(note that this is a question, not a statement! if someone has good reasons to say that ZFS is better, than I'm open to hear it!)

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:34 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

Unfortunately your argument basically consists of "ZFS wont run on Linux therefore it will fall into insignificance".

Well I'm sorry but there is a whole world of OSs outside of Linux and I happen to consider Solaris and FreeBSD to be very relevant platforms.

So please, give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS (particularly given ZFS is still a few years ahead of BtrFS in terms of testing and development).

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Erm, actually it is. ZFS has been "production-level quality" for a few years now.
Sure, new features are frequently making their way into development builds. But let's not confuse them with the excellent stable releases of ZFS.

Edited 2010-06-07 13:37 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 18:18 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

So please, give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS (particularly given ZFS is still a few years ahead of BtrFS in terms of testing and development).


A real reaseon is indeed the same as not using NTFS - it doesn't really work well with my platform of choice, while btrfs is definitely getting there. There will never really be a choice between the two. In the end it's btrfs vs. ext4 vs ext3, really.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: brtfs
by dvzt on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:18 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

A real reaseon is indeed the same as not using NTFS - it doesn't really work well with my platform of choice


Who cares about your platform of choice?

How about giving it a little thought before replying about your platform of choice to "give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS"?

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: brtfs - less specific wording
by jabbotts on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:10 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: brtfs"
jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If the platform one is working with does not provide ZFS support then it's not really much of a choice for them regardless of what OS platform it is. But, maybe I read the example in more generic terms than was intended.

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:32 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: brtfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26

A real reaseon is indeed the same as not using NTFS - it doesn't really work well with my platform of choice


...

Who cares about your platform of choice?


Er... I do?

Seriously speaking - I'm not a native English speaker, so I assumed that in the formulation above, "me" could be understood in a more abstract/passive sense than standing for myself (in a concrete fashion). I know I should have used "one's" instead of "my".

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:37 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

"So please, give me a real reason why people should choose BtrFS over ZFS (particularly given ZFS is still a few years ahead of BtrFS in terms of testing and development).


A real reaseon is indeed the same as not using NTFS - it doesn't really work well with my platform of choice, while btrfs is definitely getting there. There will never really be a choice between the two. In the end it's btrfs vs. ext4 vs ext3, really.
"
You've still not answered my question and furthermore, NTFS is used extensively because of Windows - so that's a terrible example.

I couldn't give a toss about your personal platform of choice. You made a statement that ZFS was going to die and I want you to provide evidence to back up your opinion. Thus far all you've done is spout yet more personal opinion.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:15 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
fepede Member since:
2005-11-14

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Erm, actually it is. ZFS has been "production-level quality" for a few years now.
Sure, new features are frequently making their way into development builds. But let's not confuse them with the excellent stable releases of ZFS.


Yes, you're right and I do agree with you! What I really meant was that the Linux/ZFS integration will need time to get stable, not that ZFS itself does.

With reference to the fact that there are a world of other OS out there beside Linux, you're right again, but the topic was about Linux now, so talking about the relevance of ZFS is implicitly referred to the Linux world.

I'm a great estimator of ZFS and not particular fan of BTRFS, but it seems that, being myself a Linux user, the latter will be my future.

Edited 2010-06-07 20:16 UTC

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: brtfs
by phoenix on Wed 9th Jun 2010 05:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

I do agree with the first poster, and these are my points: ZFS and BTRFS are very similar feature wise,


Other than supporting in-filesystem snapshots, RAID-0, and RAID-1, they have very, very, very little in common. And BtrFS is missing over half of the features that ZFS supports. And BtrFS is still marked as "experimental, will eat your unicorns, don't use with live data". Hardly enterprise-ready.

but BTRFS is achieving a lot of attention and support from the Linux community (and some first appearence on the "enterprise" side with RHEL 6 as an "experimental" feature).


Attention, maybe. Support, hardly. Right now, it's "just another of a thousand filesystems" that are semi-supported by the Linux kernel. No distro ships with it enabled by default. No distro recommends using it. No companies have sprung up with products that use it internally. It's barely off the drawing board.

So, I'll guess that BTRFS will be accepted as a solid and reliable solution soon, while ZFS will be a lot behind.


Only if you mark "soon" as "at least 5 years from now". The way things are going, Linux 2.8 will be released by the time BtrFS is ready for use in places where ZFS is currently used.

So, who will need ZFS when it doesn't provide anything different from BTRFS and not being at the same production-level quality?


Gee, I don't know, maybe people that want to manage multi-TB datasets today instead of waiting for "soon" to roll around.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:24 UTC in reply to "RE: brtfs"
vivainio Member since:
2008-12-26


Aside for better Linux support - I've not seen anything in BtrFS that's swayed my to switch from ZFS.


The fact that zfs has no sane Linux support (and possibly never will have) makes it like betamax - it's probably reasonably good technology, but it's not something you have access to in the first place, unless you switch to Solaris. And, I don't think that's the way the tide of the world is turning these days.

Reply Score: 7

RE[3]: brtfs
by orestes on Mon 7th Jun 2010 16:48 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
orestes Member since:
2005-07-06

Solaris or BSD you mean.
People in this thread are missing the significance though. This could be a useful bridge technology for shops that need their linux based systems to access Solaris/BSD ZFS partitions with decent performance (assuming the kernel driver is better than the FUSE solution).

Reply Score: 2

RE: brtfs
by phoenix on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:29 UTC in reply to "brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

btrfs doesn't support pooled storage.
btrfs doesn't support RAID levels above 1 (RAID10 is not higher than 1).
btrfs doesn't do end-to-end checksumming and self-healing.
btrfs doesn't do encryption (still an experimental feature in ZFS, but it's being worked on).
btrfs doesn't do deduplication.

Those are just some things I can think of off the top of my head. There's bound to be a lot more, considering the relative immaturity of the btrfs codebase compared to the ZFS codebase.

IOW, btrfs is where ZFS was 10 years ago. Explain to me again how btrfs is so much better, and will rule the storage world? ;)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: brtfs
by Tuxie on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:08 UTC in reply to "RE: brtfs"
Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

One of the ZFS features I think is coolest is L2ARC which let you put a fast SSD as a read/write-cache in front of a pool of slower mechanical disks. The blocks you use most frequently will have a copy on the SSD for quick access. IIRC the cache currently doesn't survive a reboot though (it will start caching from scratch again), but they are working on fixing that.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: brtfs
by phoenix on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Yes, cache vdevs are very handy. And they are absolutely essential for dedupe to work correctly/quickly.

Even a lowly USB flash stick can be used as a cache vdev ... so long as the read speed of the USB stack/driver/port/disk is faster than the read speed of the harddrive.

I use 4 GB USB sticks at home to speed up my pokey 120 GB SATA (non-NCQ, 1.5 GB/s) drives.

There's even support for using SSDs for write caching (log vdevs), although it's a lot harder to find SSDs that are optimised for writes (SLC-based) that include onboard power (supercap, for example) and that honour cache flush/sync requests.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 13:25 UTC in reply to "RE: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Duh, btrfs has pool storage, patches to support other raid levels and end-to-end checksumming. Self-healing, deduplication and encryption will be added later once other basic features (shich as direct-IO) are added and stabilized.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: brtfs
by phoenix on Wed 9th Jun 2010 14:46 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

RAID 5/6 support has not been checked in yet, nor has it really been made available for testing beyond the two devs working on it. Thus, it doesn't support RAID levels above 1 yet.

Nor does it really support pooled storage, as you still have to specify the harddrives that will be used for each filesystem when you create the filesystem. There's no pool management yet, just filesystem management.

So, like I said, btrfs is where zfs was 10 years ago. It's not a replacement for zfs in any way at this time.

Maybe in 5 years, it'll be where zfs is now. But it's not there yet.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 17:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Duh (again). Btrfs does pool storage from day 1. Just because the command line tool doesn't autodetect where the pool storage is it doesn't mean it isn't there.

By the way, ZFS didn't exist 10 years ago. And Btrfs is 3 years old and it is powering my Fedora 12 install since November without oopses, data corruption or problems of any other kind. It sure isn't ready for enterprise adoption, but it's certainly stable enought to be adopted by geeks, and it already has some nice features that ZFS doesn't. So I don't think I'll have to wait that much to see it used in enterprise distros (did i mention that RHEL 6 will offer it as an experimental option?)

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: brtfs
by phoenix on Wed 9th Jun 2010 23:00 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

Duh (again). Btrfs does pool storage from day 1. Just because the command line tool doesn't autodetect where the pool storage is it doesn't mean it isn't there.


Hrm, so how does one take 6 harddrives, configure them as a storage pool, and then create 6 filesystems on top? From what I've read about btrfs, this isn't possible as two separate operations. Everytime you create a filesystem, you tell it which disks to use, and what RAID level to use.

By the way, ZFS didn't exist 10 years ago.


Hrm, yeah, got my dates wrong, off by 1 year. ZFS originated in October 2001 (http://blogs.sun.com/bonwick/entry/zfs_the_last_word_in) and was integrated into Solaris 10 in October 2005.

And Btrfs is 3 years old


While it's made a lot of progress in those three years, it's still far from being a ZFS replacement. Which is the point. Everyone is claiming that BtrFS (right now) is a drop-in replacement for ZFS (right now), and that there's no point in porting ZFS (or any other FS) for that reason. Doesn't matter that (right now) BtrFS is not a drop-in replacement, since it will be in a few years.

Convincing people to stop work on a competing product, because your incomplete product will blow it away when it's finished, but that could take a few more years, is the definition of what term in computing???

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: brtfs
by diegocg on Thu 10th Jun 2010 00:05 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Everytime you create a filesystem, you tell it which disks to use, and what RAID level to use.

Everytime you want to create a fs you use "btrfs subvolume create <parameters>" and btrfs will create the fs from the pool.

and that there's no point in porting ZFS (or any other FS) for that reason.

There is no point in porting ZFS because, among other things, ZFS is not just a FS, but a complete IO stack, and I doubt very much the linux developers will accept a filesystem that does not use the Linux block layer.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: brtfs
by phoenix on Thu 10th Jun 2010 01:51 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: brtfs"
phoenix Member since:
2005-07-11

There is no point in porting ZFS because, among other things, ZFS is not just a FS, but a complete IO stack, and I doubt very much the linux developers will accept a filesystem that does not use the Linux block layer.


There's nothing that stop it from using the Linux block layer. ZFS just needs access to a block device, whether it be via iSCSI, AoE, local, or a pseudo-block device via a file.

The FreeBSD port still uses the GEOM storage framework. And it's because of GEOM that you can add a lot of nifty features to ZFS (HAST, encryption, labelling, etc).

Linux doesn't have as nice of a storage stack as FreeBSD's GEOM, though, so it might be more difficult to port to. But ZFS just needs access to block devices, and then it manages those block devices for you.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Wed 9th Jun 2010 19:16 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

BTRFS has end-to-end checksumming? I doubt it is well designed unless I see proof. BTRFS developers only recently understood that data integrity is important and decided to add that as an afterthought. What a fail. You need to design the whole file system from the ground up. For instance, reiserfs, JFS, XFS, etc nor raid-5 nor raid-6 does not give a good protection.

As I said, you need lots of experience from Enterprise storage to know how to tackle problems that arise from large scale storage.

Linux does not suffice for large scale storage. It sucks badly on Enterprise storage according to an storage expert:
http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/374...

http://www.enterprisestorageforum.com/sans/features/article.php/374...



BTW, ZFS was announced 2004. But it was prototyped and worked on, several years earlier. It is highly possible ZFS has existed 10 years today.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by diegocg on Wed 9th Jun 2010 20:00 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: brtfs"
diegocg Member since:
2005-07-08

Boo. It was there from first day. You haven't documented yourself about the most basic design ideas of Btrfs, yet you want to preach that it sucks.

About the articles: Yes, Ext* suck for big storage, that's not news. That's why SGI uses XFS in their boxes.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: brtfs
by Kebabbert on Thu 10th Jun 2010 10:04 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: brtfs"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Boo. Ive read an article where BTRFS developers only realised that data integrity is important after Sun talked a lot about it. I have googled but can not find that article again. I will post it here when I find it.


About Ext* sucks and XFS is the way to go. If you read the article that you talk about, you will see that the problems in not in the filesystem. The problems is within the Linux kernel. Even if Linux used ZFS, it would not suffice as large enterprise storage servers. Read the articles.


About XFS, well, it does not protect data sufficiently well. Researchers shows that it and ReiserFS, JFS, etc can not handle data corruption well. Your data is unsafe. Hardly suitable for Enterprise storage, heh?
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/how-microsoft-puts-your-data-at-r...

Reply Score: 2

other solution
by ssam on Mon 7th Jun 2010 11:58 UTC
ssam
Member since:
2006-03-12

the other solution is to reimplement it, like linux does with every other foreign filesystem (HFS, FAT, NTFS...)

Reply Score: 1

RE: other solution
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 12:06 UTC in reply to "other solution"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

the other solution is to reimplement it, like linux does with every other foreign filesystem (HFS, FAT, NTFS...)

Actually NTFS run's via FUSE too (just like ZFS already does).

At least NTFS-3G does. But if you know of a native NTFS driver that supports writes and runs inside the Linux kernel, then please tell me.

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: other solution
by ssam on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:00 UTC in reply to "RE: other solution"
ssam Member since:
2006-03-12

NTFS-3G is a GPL reimplementation of NTFS. it does not use microsofts GPL-incompatible code.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: other solution
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 13:28 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: other solution"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26

NTFS-3G is a GPL reimplementation of NTFS. it does not use microsofts GPL-incompatible code.

That maybe the case, but it is still a FUSE FS driver:
http://www.tuxera.com/community/ntfs-3g-faq/#useroption3

Reply Score: 2

RE[2]: other solution
by nalf38 on Tue 8th Jun 2010 04:07 UTC in reply to "RE: other solution"
nalf38 Member since:
2006-09-01

True, NTFS-3G uses FUSE, but only so it can run unmodified on a multitude of systems. It doesn't, however, use any proprietary Windows DLLs, like ZFS on FUSE uses proprietary Sun code.

Reply Score: 1

what happened to the lawsuit
by TechGeek on Mon 7th Jun 2010 17:06 UTC
TechGeek
Member since:
2006-01-14

What ever happened to the lawsuit between Sun and NetApp (I think it was them) over who actually owned the rights to ZFS? The lawsuit was the main reason why I figured ZFS would never make it into the kernel.

Reply Score: 2

RE: what happened to the lawsuit
by Kebabbert on Mon 7th Jun 2010 18:56 UTC in reply to "what happened to the lawsuit"
Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

Recently, december 2009, the court judged that NetApp has no claims to ZFS. Sun won that case. There is a web page on Sun that details every twist and turn. That case is closed.

NetApp sued Sun in another county, despite that both NetApp and Sun have the head quarters just a few miles a part. NetApp sued Sun in a county used by Patent Trolls. NetApp are nothing more than patent trolls. They are scared shit less about ZFS, which competes with their extremely expensive proprietary WAFL servers. ZFS can offer all that, for free. NetApp are soon doomed.

Reply Score: 5

gilboa
Member since:
2005-07-06

Due to licensing problem ZFS can never enter the main tree and as such, will never find its way into any of the main distros.
Unlike hardware drivers, file systems require a lot of testing by large amount of different people with different usage cases. Most people are willing to live with fairly simply out-of-tree hardware drivers, but I doubt that anyone will be crazy enough to use an out-of-tree FS on a production system.

Plus, a lot of "native" resources are being spent on porting ZFS features to Linux (Read: btrfs) reducing the potential target user-base ever further.

In short, I doubt that such a project will be long lived.
Congrats never the less.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 5

Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

maybe someday Linux will switch to a more free license.

Reply Score: 1

gilboa Member since:
2005-07-06

maybe someday Linux will switch to a more free license.


I'm not sure that you and I will agree on the definition of "free license".

So, no, will not happen.

- Gilboa

Reply Score: 2

v Comment by kittynipples
by kittynipples on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:08 UTC
RE: Comment by kittynipples
by jrmarino on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:04 UTC in reply to "Comment by kittynipples"
jrmarino Member since:
2010-06-07

Great observation, Kittynipples. I had exactly the same reaction. Fix your own damn license. Obviously it's not giving problems to truly free licenses, so the problem is with you, GPL.

Reply Score: 1

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

If you want to play with Apple, you'll have to do it there way.

If you want to play with Microsoft, you'll have to do it there way.

If you want to play with GPL, you'll have to do it there way.

If you hang out at your friend's house, you'll have to abide by there rules.

There isn't anything stopping Sun from dual-licensing, adjusting the single license or re-licensing. They could always stamp it with the BSD license (as an example from recent news).

In the end though; it's there ball and if they want to take it and go home, the rest of the kids at the soccer field don't really have a say in that.

Reply Score: 3

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


If you want to play with GPL, you'll have to do it there way.


It seems they arent to interrested in playing with the gpl?


There isn't anything stopping Sun from dual-licensing, adjusting the single license or re-licensing. They could always stamp it with the BSD license (as an example from recent news).

In the end though; it's there ball and if they want to take it and go home, the rest of the kids at the soccer field don't really have a say in that.


Sun arent the one going home. It's the gpl kid. Blaming sun for not being willing to offer everything so it can be put into the linux kernel.

Why should Oracle/sun change the licens just because a the gpl camp wants them to do so?

Because Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory asks them to? Funny thing is if it were the other way around the gpl people would tell them to write their own code...

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

"Why should Oracle/sun change the licens just because a the gpl camp wants them to do so? "

That was my point. Sun/Oracle has chosen how the item is licensed. It can't be included into the kernel because the license conflicts. If they where interested in getting it into the kernel, they could choose to change the license. Since it's there "ball", they have the right to license it as they like even if that stops some other kids from being able to join in the game.

I see how the comment could be read in the reverse though as many seem to have done given the first few responses.

Reply Score: 2

hamster Member since:
2006-10-06


That was my point. Sun/Oracle has chosen how the item is licensed. It can't be included into the kernel because the license conflicts. If they where interested in getting it into the kernel, they could choose to change the license. Since it's there "ball", they have the right to license it as they like even if that stops some other kids from being able to join in the game.


Linux arent the only kid and surely not all that important outside the linux camp so why would anyone use the gpl just to please the linux camp?


I see how the comment could be read in the reverse though as many seem to have done given the first few responses.


I might have read to much ínto your post.

Reply Score: 2

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

This isn't about Oracle wanting to "play with GPL," this is about some Linux developers wanting Oracle to change its licensing terms to accommodate them. If it was the other way around, you could be sure that Oracle would be told to pound sand.

Reply Score: 1

dvzt Member since:
2008-10-23

If you want to play with Apple, you'll have to do it there way.

If you want to play with Microsoft, you'll have to do it there way.


And if you want to play with Sun, you'll have to do it their way, too.

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

exactly. Oracle/Sun chose a license and it is either compatible or not but it's there choice.

Reply Score: 2

kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

My guess is that if Oracle decided to play nice and dual license it, the GPL kids would repay the favor by only contributing their patches to the GPL version. Showing their true appreciation.

Reply Score: 2

Macrat Member since:
2006-03-27

It's not Snoracle's fault that Linux uses an incompatible license.

Reply Score: 3

bert64 Member since:
2007-04-23

Considering Oracle are developing BTRFS, and seemingly did so as a competitor to ZFS which they also now own... It would make a lot of sense for them to re-release ZFS under GPLv2 or BSD and merge the feature sets in the two filesystems.

Reply Score: 2

Delgarde Member since:
2008-08-19

Considering Oracle are developing BTRFS, and seemingly did so as a competitor to ZFS which they also now own... It would make a lot of sense for them to re-release ZFS under GPLv2 or BSD and merge the feature sets in the two filesystems.


Yes, I've been wondering myself how that one will go - ZFS was Sun's baby, but what's Oracle's view on it?

Reply Score: 2

jabbotts Member since:
2007-09-06

I didn't know both filesystems where (now) from the same owner. I'd actually suggest BSD though if they where looking to expand ZFS adoption. Hopefully the MBAs don't get a hold of it and lock it up as part of Solaris or a future Oracle enterprise product.

Reply Score: 2

Tuxie Member since:
2009-04-22

I don't usually play grammar nazi but since you made the same error five times in the same post I just can't stay silent. ;)

Their way, their rules, their ball. ("There isn't" is correct though)

Reply Score: 2

Thank-you developers!
by pawstar on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:15 UTC
pawstar
Member since:
2007-06-27

I for one want to thank the developers for releasing this project. Personally, I was really hoping someone would do a port and release it outside the kernel. Lo and behold, here we have it!

As for stability/testing/etc, please keep in mind that the code has been ported not *reimplemented*. There is less likely hood of problems when compared to a fringe file system that lives outside of the kernel and isn't natively implemented anywhere else.

Another point, if you read Brian's post, you will see that Oracle has been somewhat involved in this project. From what I gather this is not a toy project.

P.S. All we need now is for someone to do the same for Windows (IFS ?)

Reply Score: 1

Comment by evik
by evik on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:08 UTC
evik
Member since:
2010-06-07

"Main developer Brian Behlendorf has also stated that the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory has repeatedly urged Oracle to do something about the licensing situation so that ZFS can become a part of the kernel."

Why do Linux people think that everyone else should change their licenses and go with the Linus's choice?

Reply Score: 1

RE: Comment by evik
by kittynipples on Mon 7th Jun 2010 23:38 UTC in reply to "Comment by evik"
kittynipples Member since:
2006-08-02

Because they are ideologues.

Reply Score: 0

RE: Comment by evik
by LibertyTrek on Wed 9th Jun 2010 17:21 UTC in reply to "Comment by evik"
LibertyTrek Member since:
2010-06-09

It isn't quite that simple...

Do you not understand that it is a practical *impossibility* to change the license for the linux kernel?

Once you get your head around that, there is only one option when it comes to getting anything inside the kernel - it must be compatible with the kernel license.

Linus already commented a long time ago on this with respect to changing the kernel license to GPLv3, and those same arguments would only be that much stronger with respect to any other license.

I'm not saying this means that anyone else *should* change their license, I'm just saying that arguing that the license for the linux kernel could be changed is just plain ignorant.

Reply Score: 1

Who can help me understand the problem?
by Moochman on Mon 7th Jun 2010 22:34 UTC
Moochman
Member since:
2005-07-06

It's been a long time since I read up on the CDDL/GPL incompatibility debacle, and I never really got much of a grasp on it in the first place, so could someone who has a better idea of the problem please explain it to me?

Also out of curiosity, is CDDL equally incompatible with with GPL v2 and v3?

Reply Score: 2

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

CDDL is equally incompatible with both GPL versions.

Incompatibility is because GPL and CDDL are both copyleft licenses and neither permit re-licensing code to any other license; CDDL code is availabe under CDDL only and GPL code is available under GPL only. GPL's copyleft is wider and stronger, it requires all derivatives and extensions of GPL'd code to be under GPL-compatible license as well, while CDDL apply only to specific source files and allows proprietary extensions (or open source, as long it is not GPL). There are lot other differences, but this is biggest.

So, ZFS becomes part of kernel when is merged, and whole kernel is GPL. Since CDDL does not alow re-licensing to GPL, it can't be merged.


All this is not by mistake. Sun have chosen GPL incompatible license for OpenSolaris and ZFS on purpose. Danese Cooper is the one who actually wrote CDDL, and she said on Debian conference in 2006 that special requirement for was that license must be GPL-incompatible. Here is the link http://caesar.acc.umu.se/pub/debian-meetings/2006/debconf6/theora-s...

PS: Watch at 11:30 and later.

So whole crack-pot idea of changing Linux to CDDL is crazy. Day when Linux switches to CDDL would be the day when ZFS switch to something else and Linux would be stuck with oldish version.

Not like that is going to happen, Solaris is going proprietary anyway.

Edited 2010-06-08 08:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

Thanks for the explanation.

Not like that is going to happen, Solaris is going proprietary anyway.


What makes you think this? What would it even mean to "go proprietary"? Scrapping the CDDL? Really? To me it seems like the open-source nature of Solaris is the only thing keeping it vibrant. HP/UX and AIX may still have plenty of customers, but the question is, what percentage are just legacy? With Solaris I actually see some potential for growth, precisely because it is open-source.

Reply Score: 2

gnufreex Member since:
2010-05-06

They can't scrap CDDL'd code, but they probably wont opensource parts which are closed now, like SCC, Xsun, fishworks and such.

OpenSolaris is not selfhosting, you can't compile it without some proprietary libraries and there is some of "valued add" (or better say: Freedom subtract) parts, like mentioned fishworks.

Sun had plans to opensource that, and they also had plans to fix CDDL and remove choice of law clause in v2, making it acceptable license (look video for details). Oracle probably wont bother.

There is also problem with developer community... or lack there of. How many of OpenSolaris fans do serious kernel development? All kernel developers are at Oracle. If Larry moves them to proprietary Solaris version, OpenSolaris is toast. There is nobody to pick up development. 2009.6 will stay available, but how long will people use that? Oracle already discontinued paid support for OpenSolaris, there is now only proprietary Solaris 10 on their agenda. Or should I say SoLarry's.

I really liked Sun, but they really screwed with OpenSolaris licensing. If they used GPLv3, they would still be incompatible with Linux in start, but they would look good and see developers coming into their community and no Larry Elison could kill OpenSolaris. This way, OpenSolaris will be abandonware.


To all GPL bashers: That is what happen when you use GPL-incompatible license on purpose.

Reply Score: 2

Moochman Member since:
2005-07-06

There is also problem with developer community... or lack there of. How many of OpenSolaris fans do serious kernel development? All kernel developers are at Oracle. If Larry moves them to proprietary Solaris version, OpenSolaris is toast. There is nobody to pick up development. 2009.6 will stay available, but how long will people use that? Oracle already discontinued paid support for OpenSolaris, there is now only proprietary Solaris 10 on their agenda. Or should I say SoLarry's.

I am usually one of the most skeptical people around when it comes to big businesses, but in this case I think you're being irrationally paranoid. First off, Oralce eliminating paid support for OpenSolaris was a perfectly reasonable strategic move that as far as I can tell has no bearing on whether OpenSolaris will be developed further. Larry Ellison may be ruthless, but he is also smart. And the thing is, there is simply no benefit to be had by closing down OpenSolaris. Just think of OpenSolaris as their Fedora and Solaris as their Red Hat. It's a fine business model that they really have no need to mess with.

Keep in mind also that Oracle has been one of the biggest open-source contributors when it comes to Java technology in the past decade. Just because they sell a lot of proprietary software as well does not mean they are averse to open-source stuff. Ex-Sun-supporters like yourself need to stop being overly paranoid and hyperventilating and have a little faith that Ellison is not going to ruin everything.

Reply Score: 2

Burana Member since:
2009-01-26

Oracle already discontinued paid support for OpenSolaris, there is now only proprietary Solaris 10 on their agenda.


FUD! OpenSolaris support is still available today and in the future!

Reply Score: 1

Kebabbert Member since:
2007-07-27

That is true. OpenSolaris FUD is everywhere. OpenSolaris is the basis for Solaris 11. If OpenSolaris is killed, how will Oracle deliver Solaris 11? Everyone agrees that Solaris 11 will be delivered, how is that possible if all OpenSolaris code is scrapped? Some people dont think at all, or they are just plain FUDers.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by lundman
by lundman on Wed 9th Jun 2010 01:59 UTC
lundman
Member since:
2010-06-09

At the risk of being lynched publically, who *cares* about licenses! So we will have to get Linux via torrent on piratebay. That's not such a big deal! ;)

Reply Score: 1

Enlightening topic
by Neolander on Wed 9th Jun 2010 14:53 UTC
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

Thanks to all BtrFS and ZFS fans who enumerate their features here. I learned something today, thanks to them : I didn't know that even file systems were subject to software bloat before.

Edited 2010-06-09 14:54 UTC

Reply Score: 2