To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
But my point is unless ZFS's Linux module is GPL (ie a complete re-write) then Linux is unlikely to adopt it as standard over BtrFS.
So should Oracle drop ZFS (hypothetical question i know) will there be enough community developers to keep ZFS alive?
Maybe I'm worrying over nothing. I very much hope that's the case, but I guess only time will tell
I dont agree with your post. I suggest you stop worrying about ZFS and start to worry about BTRFS instead.
One of the great things about ZFS is because your data is safe with ZFS. I doubt your data is safe with BTRFS, as your data is not safe with XFS, JFS, ReiserFS, hardware raid-5 or 6, etc - which is showed in current research. I therefore doubt BTRFS keeps your data safe.
Why do you think ZFS is slower than BTRFS? Because ZFS does those checksums to guarantee your data is safe.
People that prioritize data safety, will surely continue to use ZFS. BTRFS is just another Linux filesystem - and as we all know, Linux filesystems are not really ready for Enterprise use, as they scale bad. You want to see links and articles about this?
You've missed my point. I'm not worried about my data (as I said when I opened this discussion, I'm somewhat of a ZFS fanboy). I'm worried about the future development of ZFS.
I never said nor even suggested it was slower.
BtrFS isn't just "another Linux file system" though. It's built by Oracle and Oracle are all about salability and enterprise use. BtrFS is also the underlying file system behind Oracles distributed file system (the name of which escapes me). So Oracle do have a vested interest in making BtrFS work as much as they do with ZFS.
Actually yes please. Not because I dispute your claims but more because I'm a geek and enjoy this kind of reading material





Member since:
2007-03-26
The point being if only Solaris is supporting ZFS (and taking into account Oracle doesn't favour open source like Sun did), then ZFS might quickly become obscure tech only available to Oracle licensees.
As BtrFS is GPL, I could see many people favouring BtrFS for the long game than an increasingly closed ZFS for the short game. In fact we already see this with Linux (though Linuxes situation differs slightly due to license incomparability so improving BtrFS might prove quicker than reverse engineering ZFS for the sake of having GPL code), but thankfully I'm not loyal to Linux like many of my fellow open source advocates are. But lets face it, as much as I like Unix, Linux does have massive clout these days so there is already a massive demand for BtrFS.
So if 5 years down the line, the majority of the industry outside of Oracle are favouring BtrFS, then why would Oracle care about ZFS internally? Particularly when I'm yet to see any evidence that they're migrating their own databases from Redhat to Solaris (or at least they're not on any of the servers my organisation leases from them)
There has been plenty of occasions where the more mature of two technologies have fallen out of favour. So I wouldn't say ZFS was sitting comfortably just because it has a few years on it's rivals. If anything, I would say it's fucture was uncertain because FreeBSD is the only non-Oracle OS that seems to properly support that file system.
Edited 2010-11-16 13:10 UTC