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

Linus: Don't Use ZFS

realworldtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 571 posts

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#11

Post by djsumdog »

Hamuko wrote: post #7
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Here's his reasoning: "honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But…

That's his reasoning for not merging ZFS code, not for generally avoiding ZFS.

Well he had this:

> as far as I can tell, it has no real maintenance behind it either any more

Which simply isn't true. They just released a new ZFS version with encryption built in (no more ZFS + LUKS) and they removed the SPL dependency (which didn't support Linux 5.0+ anyway).

I use ZFS on my Linux machines for my storage and I've been rather happy with it.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#12

Post by jandrese »

gigatexal wrote: post #5

He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained. It’s more or less been formed no? Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing? ZFS is amazing and I would soon go to a BSD flavor with a fun set of user land utilities than give it up.

OpenZFS would still be in danger of a potential Oracle lawsuit.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#13

Post by Covzire »

Hamuko wrote: post #7
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Here's his reasoning: "honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But…

That's his reasoning for not merging ZFS code, not for generally avoiding ZFS.

Relevant bits:

"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me.

The benchmarks I've seen do not make ZFS look all that great. And as far as I can tell, it has no real maintenance behind it either any more, so from a long-term stability standpoint, why would you ever want to use it in the first place?"

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#14

Post by bscphil »

Hamuko wrote: post #7
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Here's his reasoning: "honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But…

That's his reasoning for not merging ZFS code, not for generally avoiding ZFS.

Well, he says

> It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me.

So presumably the licensing problem mentioned by your parent's comment is weighing heavily here. I think this "don't use ZFS" statement is most accurately targeted at distro maintainers. Anyone not actually redistributing Linux and ZFS in a way that would (maybe) violate the GPL is not at any risk. That means even large enterprises can get away with using ZoL.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#15

Post by emmp »

awill wrote: post #6
gigatexal wrote: post #5

He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained. It’s more or less been formed no? Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing? ZFS is amazing and I would soon go to a BSD flavor with a fun set of user land utilities than give it up.

Isn't that beside the point? OpenZFS is still CDDL.

I think it is besides the point for the risks of merging anything into Linux. He's right on that topic of course.

But it is a separate point he made about using zfs in general, and it's certainly not correct if you take one look at the activity in the zfsonlinux project on GitHub.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#16

Post by m463 »

Hamuko wrote: post #7
Jonnax wrote: post #4

Here's his reasoning: "honestly, there is no way I can merge any of the ZFS efforts until I get an official letter from Oracle that is signed by their main legal counsel or preferably by Larry Ellison himself that says that yes, it's ok to do so and treat the end result as GPL'd. Other people think it can be ok to merge ZFS code into the kernel and that the module interface makes it ok, and that's their decision. But…

That's his reasoning for not merging ZFS code, not for generally avoiding ZFS.

"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me."

When he says that, I think on the $500 million Sun spent on advertising java.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#18

Post by akerro »

gigatexal wrote: post #5

He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained. It’s more or less been formed no? Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing? ZFS is amazing and I would soon go to a BSD flavor with a fun set of user land utilities than give it up.

>Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing?

That's what he meant by Oracle licensing issues. Java API infringement case against Google

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#20

Post by yjftsjthsd-h »

jandrese wrote: post #12
gigatexal wrote: post #5

He mentioned that he didn’t think it was being maintained. It’s more or less been formed no? Has Linus not seen the work that the OpenZFS folks are doing? ZFS is amazing and I would soon go to a BSD flavor with a fun set of user land utilities than give it up.

OpenZFS would still be in danger of a potential Oracle lawsuit.

For what? It's under the CDDL.
Post reply on HN