Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 7th Jun 2010 10:15 UTC, submitted by kragil
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.
Thread beginning with comment 428576
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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
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.
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.
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
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.
News
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:15 UTC
"This is my NeXTstation Turbo Color booting the Mac System 7.1 Operating System using a hardware add-on called 'Daydream'. The Daydream has a Mac ROM and a few custom ICs in it and hooked up to the NeXTs DSP port. Turns your NeXT into a full fledged 68k powered Mac." So cool.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/19/13 23:11 UTC, submitted by Drumhellar
"The NetBSD Project is pleased to announce NetBSD 6.1, the first feature update of the NetBSD 6 release branch. It represents a selected subset of fixes deemed important for security or stability reasons, as well as new features and enhancements. Please note that all fixes in the prior security/bugfix updates (NetBSD 6.0.1 and 6.0.2) are also in 6.1."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 21:06 UTC
"At the end of a week in which Electronic Arts confirmed it wasn't developing a thing for the Wii U, one of the software engineers in EA Sports' Canada studio, in a series of since-deleted tweets, disparaged the console as 'crap' and suggested Nintendo should give up on hardware altogether. 'The Wii U is crap. Less powerful than an Xbox 360. Poor online/store. Weird tablet', tweeted Bob Summerwill, listed as a senior software engineer at EA Canada, in a reply to a tweet posting a link about EA's no-Wii U news. 'Nintendo are walking dead at this point'." The Wii U is turning into the 21st century's Virtual Boy.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/18/13 7:37 UTC
"In NixOS, the entire operating system - the kernel, applications, system packages, configuration files, and so on - is built by the Nix package manager from a description in a purely functional build language. The fact that it's purely functional essentially means that building a new configuration cannot overwrite previous configurations. Most of the other features follow from this." Interesting approach. A Linux distribution, sure, but with some very refreshing ideas about system configuration.
Linked by fran on 05/18/13 1:38 UTC
Appfour added, among other features, C/C++ support to its new version of AIDE. From Android-IDE, "Now you can write parts of your app or your whole app in C/C++ on your device. AIDE supports the Standard Android NDK toolchain (GCC 4.6 + Bionic, STL, ...). No changes are necessary if you want to build an app developed on a PC with Eclipse. C/C++ development is fully integrated: Build errors appear in the error list and files can easily be navigated to with Go to file. The editor supports C/C++ syntax highlighting."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 23:35 UTC, submitted by kragil
Ars nails it: "The answer is that Google did announce what amounts to a fairly substantial Android update yesterday. They simply did it without adding to the update fragmentation problems that continue to plague the platform. By focusing on these changes and not the apparently-waiting-in-the-wings update to the core software, Google is showing us one of the ways in which it's trying to fix the update problem."
Linked by MOS6510 on 05/17/13 22:22 UTC
"It is good for programmers to understand what goes on inside a processor. The CPU is at the heart of our career. What goes on inside the CPU? How long does it take for one instruction to run? What does it mean when a new CPU has a 12-stage pipeline, or 18-stage pipeline, or even a 'deep' 31-stage pipeline? Programs generally treat the CPU as a black box. Instructions go into the box in order, instructions come out of the box in order, and some processing magic happens inside. As a programmer, it is useful to learn what happens inside the box. This is especially true if you will be working on tasks like program optimization. If you don't know what is going on inside the CPU, how can you optimize for it? This article is about what goes on inside the x86 processor's deep pipeline."
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/17/13 22:15 UTC, submitted by Tom
"It was the only moment I heard regret slip into Otellini's voice during the several hours of conversations I had with him. 'The lesson I took away from that was, while we like to speak with data around here, so many times in my career I've ended up making decisions with my gut, and I should have followed my gut,' he said. 'My gut told me to say yes.'" The world would've been a much different place - Apple would have been less dependant on Samsung for its chips, which probably would've meant less money for Samsung to develop its Galaxy business.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 21:41 UTC
Glass is getting some love at Google I/O as well. New applications have been released - Facebook, Twitter, Evernote, Elle, Tumblr, and CNN. Perhaps more interesting: the newly announced Google Glass Developer Kit will allow offline applications and direct hardware access - great for hacking and expanding Glass' potential. This kit will really allow hackers to put Glass through its paces.
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 05/16/13 17:04 UTC
"But Beck and Merrill decided that simply banning toxic players wasn't an acceptable solution for their game. Riot Games began experimenting with more constructive modes of player management through a formal player behavior initiative that actually conducts controlled experiments on its player base to see what helps reduce bad behavior. The results of that initiative have been shared at a lecture at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and on panels at the Penny Arcade Expo East and the Game Developers Conference." Absolutely fascinating stuff. I'm a League of Legends player, and to be honest, the community isn't nearly as bad as some make it out to be. I'm happy Riot games has the guts to employ science to address the issue.More News »
Sponsored Links
Member since:
2005-11-14
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!)