Linus: Don't Use ZFS

Post by HorstG » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:20 AM UTC

shawnz wrote: post #170

throwaway6779 wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I remember correctly, the reasoning for the GPL module stuff was/is, that if kernel modules integrate deeply with the kernel, they fall under gpl. So the GPL flag is basically a guideline of what kernel developers believe is safe to use from non gpl-compatible modules

This is the commonly recited argument but I don't believe it was ever proven to be legally necessary. Furthermore, even if it was, it's not clear what level of integration is "too deep". So in practice, it's just a way for kernel developers to add political restrictions as they see fit.

Post by XorNot » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

thenewnewguy wrote: post #182

Wowfunhappy wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And I'm not at all interested in some "ZFS shim layer" thing either If there is no "approved" method for creating Linux drivers under licenses other than the GPL, that seems like a major problem that Linux should be working to address. Expecting all Linux drivers to be GPL-licensed is unrealistic and just leads to crappy user experiences. nVidia is never going to release full-featured GPL'd drivers, and even corpor…

There is an "approved" method - write an publish your own kernel module. However if your module is not GPL licensed it cannot be published in the linux kernel itself, and you must keep up with the maintenance of the code. This is a relatively fair requirement imo.

Post by secabeen » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:33 AM UTC

malty7301 wrote: post #192

hackmiester wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They harass universities about it too. Which is ludicrous, because universities often have residence halls, and people who live there often download VirtualBox extensions.

Their PUEL license even has a grant specifically for educational use.

Post by secabeen » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:35 AM UTC

cogman10 wrote: post #186

Seenso wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The benchmarks I've seen do not make ZFS look all that great. The thing about ZFS that actually appeals to me is how much error-checking it does. Checksums/hashes are kept of both data and metadata, and those checksums are regularly checked to detect and fix corruption. As far as I know it (and filesystems with similar architectures) are the only ones that can actually protect against bit rot. https://github.com/zf…

> those checksums are regularly checked to detect and fix corruption. I don't believe that's true. They are checked on access, but if left alone, nothing will verify them. From what I've read, you need to setup a cron job that runs scrubbing on some regular schedule.

Post by pnako » Fri, Jan 10, 2020, 12:38 AM UTC

__jal wrote: post #45

Covzire wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?"

Linus is just wrong as far as maintenance, as a look at the linux-zfs lists would show. From my perspective, it has no real competitor under linux, which is why I use it. I don't consider brtfs mature enough for critical data. (Others can reasonably disagree, I have intentionally high standards for data durability.) Aside from legal issues, he's talking out of his ass.