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.
Thread beginning with comment 428580
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
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 Parent Score: 4

RE[4]: brtfs
by vivainio on Mon 7th Jun 2010 18:18 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 Parent Score: 3

RE[5]: brtfs
by dvzt on Mon 7th Jun 2010 19:18 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[5]: brtfs
by Laurence on Mon 7th Jun 2010 21:37 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 Parent Score: 2

RE[4]: brtfs
by fepede on Mon 7th Jun 2010 20:15 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 Parent Score: 1