Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

lists.freebsd.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 102 posts

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#71

Post by lmm »

rbanffy wrote: post #60
rincebrain wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would guess it's because people don't always try to figure out whether bugs they find that appear to be in Linux-specific code can be reproduced in other codebases, rather than explicit lack of interest or PRs going nowhere slowly.

Is there enough interest in ZFS that an organization could be set up to keep a single core ZFS and coordinate its ports into different OSs in a way all ports benefit from updates and the frontier between core and OS can be clearer?

Well, this mailing list discussion is serving that function; how much more of an "organization" would you want?

I suppose you could argue for having a single, explicitly OS-independent "upstream repository" rather than treating either Illumos or ZoL as upstream? I doubt there are enough developers who would want to work on ZFS generically rather than ZFS in the context of a particular OS. ZoL maintains a clear separation from Linux proper for licensing reasons so I'd think they're "independent enough" to serve as upstream for non-Linux versions.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#72

Post by riffraff »

BurningCycles wrote: post #69
h1d wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs. https://blog.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux Though FSF doesn't seem to support it. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux And a few HN posts regarding the Ubuntu's announcement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240402

>But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs. Yes, but it's shipped as a separate kernel module (as in separate file) rather than built into the Linux kernel. As for the legality of this, it can really only be determined in court, which hopefully won't happen since I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone. It would be great if it could eventually be part of Linux m…

> I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone.

Oracle? I doubt they would, but I mean, it's Oracle.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#73

Post by laumars »

riffraff wrote: post #72
BurningCycles wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs. Yes, but it's shipped as a separate kernel module (as in separate file) rather than built into the Linux kernel. As for the legality of this, it can really only be determined in court, which hopefully won't happen since I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone. It would be great if it could eventually be part of Linux m…

> I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone. Oracle? I doubt they would, but I mean, it's Oracle.

I get you point but Oracle don't really seem all that interested in maximizing Solaris.

The problem we have is Oracle also don't seem at all interested in maximizing ZFS either. So they'd quite happily see both die.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#74

Post by h1d »

laumars wrote: post #73
riffraff wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone. Oracle? I doubt they would, but I mean, it's Oracle.

I get you point but Oracle don't really seem all that interested in maximizing Solaris. The problem we have is Oracle also don't seem at all interested in maximizing ZFS either. So they'd quite happily see both die.

Only until they figure suing others would be worth a grab for them.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#75

Post by h1d »

BurningCycles wrote: post #69
h1d wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs. https://blog.ubuntu.com/2016/02/18/zfs-licensing-and-linux Though FSF doesn't seem to support it. https://www.fsf.org/licensing/zfs-and-linux And a few HN posts regarding the Ubuntu's announcement. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11125063 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11240402

>But Ubuntu figured it was ok to ship with zfs. Yes, but it's shipped as a separate kernel module (as in separate file) rather than built into the Linux kernel. As for the legality of this, it can really only be determined in court, which hopefully won't happen since I can't think of anyone who would want to prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone. It would be great if it could eventually be part of Linux m…

> prevent Linux from using ZFS now that Sun is gone.

Considering btrfs isn't really going anywhere why would they not rather take the effort to relicense zfs than put any effort on btrfs if they have no bad intention with zfs?

Fixing zfs' situation surely can buy some mindshare for Oracle.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#76

Post by 4ad »

p_l wrote: post #32
chasil wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless and until Oracle relicenses ZFS in compatible terms. My theory on how this might happen is an independent implementation of BtrFS that extends from ZFS code, sharing it whenever possible. Should such a thing emerge and surpass current BtrFS, what else could Oracle do but throw in the towel?

Oracle is not capable of relicensing OpenZFS, as they do not hold the copyright for it past code that is common between ZFS v28/ZPOOL v5 and OpenZFS. From my understanding both Linus and ZoL team prefer to be separate.

> Oracle is not capable of relicensing OpenZFS, as they do not hold the copyright for it past code that is common between ZFS v28/ZPOOL v5 and OpenZFS.

Yes, all the parties that contributed code would have to agree, not just Oracle. However, I doubt anyone would object relicensing ZFS to some license that both FreeBSD and Linux would find acceptable.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#77

Post by icebraining »

h1d wrote: post #46
simcop2387 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For ZFS itself, probably not much. It'd be the rest of the system you'd be selecting things for.

Isn't FreeBSD suddenly getting a version of zfs with features and bits of code that is developed against Linux? Sounds like edge cases for performance and stability could show up?

They were already getting a version of zfs developed against another OS (illumos).

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#78

Post by laumars »

h1d wrote: post #74
laumars wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get you point but Oracle don't really seem all that interested in maximizing Solaris. The problem we have is Oracle also don't seem at all interested in maximizing ZFS either. So they'd quite happily see both die.

Only until they figure suing others would be worth a grab for them.

That doesn't contradict my statement.

One can be aggressively litigating using ones IP while also letting the technology behind that IP die.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#79

Post by h1d »

icebraining wrote: post #77
h1d wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't FreeBSD suddenly getting a version of zfs with features and bits of code that is developed against Linux? Sounds like edge cases for performance and stability could show up?

They were already getting a version of zfs developed against another OS (illumos).

They know the edge cases and gotchas on that version by now but until they test the ZoL version on wide variety of FreeBSD deployments, it could mean they're back to labelling it a beta version at this point.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#80

Post by Hackbraten »

zapzupnz wrote: post #65
h1d wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, there's unlikely to be any official support of zfs on Mac and the fact Apple developed apfs recently could mean there's less appetite for community to port and support zfs on Mac.

I don't see how. Those who want ZFS probably want to use specific features of it or for specific purposes but don't want to have to stop using macOS to continue working with ZFS volumes.

I agree. For me, APFS still lacks essential features, such as data integrity checks and advanced control over snapshots.
Post reply on HN