In a blog post, Sun's Jonathan Schwartz has announced that Sun will counter-sue Net App, after negotiations proved to be fruitless. "So now it looks like we can't avoid responding to their litigation, as frustrated as I am by that (as I said, we have zero interest in suing them). I wanted to outline our response (even if it tips off the folks at Net App), and for everyone to know where we're headed. First, the basics. Sun indemnifies all its customers against IP claims like this. [...] Second, Sun protects the communities using our technologies under free software licenses. [...] Third, we file patents defensively."
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Member since:2006-01-19
For people that aren't into using Solaris and instead prefer Linux, ZFS isn't usable. Please don't bring up the FUSE port of ZFS. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously saying you should use FUSE in production for actually important data.
Who said anything about FUSE? I agree with you entirely, but as far as I am concerned, the Linux folks' complaints about not being able to use ZFS are about as reasonable as a vegetarian complaining about not being able to use delicious, juicy hamburgers, because they happen to be made of meat.
If you follow Zumastor development, they've been gearing up for a first release. As a matter of fact, they've only been doing bugfixing for the past few months. Its just a matter of time.
Again, I agree, but so what? Everything is a matter of time. Pre-alpha is their own description, and considering your opionion of using FUSE for production data, why get excited about pre-alpha storage management software? FUSE is likely to be more stable 
ZFS is really cool, but not for everyone. Also, the DragonflyBSD developer isn't sold on ZFS. He wrote his own filesystem and has some compelling arguments *against* ZFS:
People are still allowed to write their own filesystems. In Dillon's case, he seemed to argue that ZFS was not appropriate for extremely distributed filesystems. This is sensible since it was not even designed to be mounted by two local machines at once.
I don't want to be a jerk about Zumastor, it looks interesting. But you have to be realistic. By 'open-source' alternitive I am now guessing you meant 'Linux alternative'. Not the same thing. Dillon rejected ZFS because it doesn't fit his technical goals. Linux is another story entirely.
Member since:2005-11-05
ZFS is CDDL. CDDL is not GPL compatible hence it will never make it into Linux. Please don't turn this into a GPL vs CDDL or Sun is going to some magical day in the future GPLv3 Solaris debate. Those go nowhere.
You are right on everypoint. I was just saying that Zumastor is an up-and-coming giant that people seem to skipover. So what if google uses it internally (oops, did I say that?), it is small fries until its kernelpatches make it into mainline. FYI: Daniel Phillips, the lead Zumastor developer is the guy who wrote the original LVM implementation for Linux. Those guys know what they are doing.
ZFS is cool, and currently it is the only open source kickass filesystem. That doesn't mean it always will be
Member since:
2005-11-05
For people that aren't into using Solaris and instead prefer Linux, ZFS isn't usable. Please don't bring up the FUSE port of ZFS. You can't expect anyone to take you seriously saying you should use FUSE in production for actually important data.
If you follow Zumastor development, they've been gearing up for a first release. As a matter of fact, they've only been doing bugfixing for the past few months. Its just a matter of time.
ZFS is really cool, but not for everyone. Also, the DragonflyBSD developer isn't sold on ZFS. He wrote his own filesystem and has some compelling arguments *against* ZFS:
http://kerneltrap.org/DragonFlyBSD/HAMMER_Filesystem_Design