To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Well, the only reason ZFS isn't in Linux is because of the license. And no-one would be surprised if that is what Sun choose to use that license.
Even Sun at some point had plans to use Linux and ZFS together for Lustre-projects.
After all Lustre is already a pretty patchset against mainline Linux-kernel and as they control the code they can sell it like that to customers without it being a big problem.
Edited 2011-06-16 09:37 UTC
I'd be far more worried about the schism between ZFS on Solaris and ZFS on everything else than "fragmentation in the filesystem arena". There's never been a be all end all filesystem, there never will be. Even if there magically was one somehow that solved all the use cases in the bet possible way, ZFS wasn't going to be it. Ever.





Member since:
2006-03-23
This is unfortunate. I have mixed feelings about ZFS vs Btrfs.
- ZFS has been tried in the field and works very well. It was revolutionary if you will. I don't think ZFS is going to be replaced in Solaris, Nexenta, or FreeBSD any time soon.
- Rather than use Btfs, I'd like to see ZFS omnipresent as administrators only need to learn and plan for ZFS strategies
- Since ZFS on Linux efforts appear to be fading, and Btrfs efforts seem to be increasing, it looks like we're going to have fragmentation in the filesystem arena.
Don't get me wrong - I know that OSS is all about choice, and that aspect usually translates into a "good thing". But sometimes, it really does feel redundant, unnecessary, and problematic.
The good news is that things keep getting better and better, and I'm guessing within a year Btrfs will see it's day on production systems.
Cheers.