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

21–30 of 102 posts

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#21

Post by chasil »

carlavilla wrote: post #3
vermaden wrote: post #2

TL;DR FreeBSD will rebase its ZFS code from Illumos to ZFS on Linux (ZoL).

If the ZFS FreeBSD code are going to be taken from ZoL, what's the difference of use ZFS on FreeBSD and GNU/Linux?

FreeBSD can bundle it in the installer, and put the root filesystem in a ZFS dataset.

Because of GPL incompatibility with the CDDL, Linux cannot do this. A compliant installer must put root on something else, usually ext4 or xfs. A Linux installer iso putting root in a zfs dataset opens a terrible legal door.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#22

Post by cat199 »

kim0 wrote: post #9

Hope this puts to rest the claim that zfs on bsd is better maintained and integrated than zol!

> and integrated

Considering one of thse comes default the base system and the installer can install to it, has jail(8) integration, etc etc

and one of them is an addon which will never be merged to the main kernel (which is only a kernel), and because of this, will likely never be directly supported by the main linux distribution vendors, I'd say the jury is still out on this piece..

lack of base system integration for linuces also leaves the 'maintained' somewhat up in the air too.. if I'm running $linux_flavor and Zfs crashes, and the ZoL devs blame this particular distros particular configuration/build options, toolchain, etc where do I go for a fix?

migrate to another linux with totally different package mgmt, etc?

but yes, it looks like the zfs core code itself is more actively updated for that portion directly.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#24

Post by ggm »

adtac wrote: post #16

Is there a resource that explains the historical intricacies and licensing issues surrounding ZFS from the beginning? From what I've seen, it's a clusterfuck whichever *nix OS you like.

Definitely feels like it. OSX had its "we're onboard with ZFS" moment which vanished. I am believing this was a licence fubar.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#25

Post by gsich »

voltagex_ wrote: post #23

OT, sort of: I am banned (permanently? [2]) from the #zfsonlinux IRC channel because I connected to it via IRCCloud [1]. It's this kind of attitude that worries me about using it. 1: http://irccloud.com 2: https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux-quaran...

They probably don't want another service storing and analysing your messages.

The free version is basically useless: "Stay connected for 2 hours while inactive (permanent for first 7 days)" because of this.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#26

Post by voltagex_ »

gsich wrote: post #25
voltagex_ wrote: post #23

OT, sort of: I am banned (permanently? [2]) from the #zfsonlinux IRC channel because I connected to it via IRCCloud [1]. It's this kind of attitude that worries me about using it. 1: http://irccloud.com 2: https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux-quaran...

They probably don't want another service storing and analysing your messages. The free version is basically useless: "Stay connected for 2 hours while inactive (permanent for first 7 days)" because of this.

Sure, but I can't even reconnect with another client with my normal Freenode account now.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#27

Post by geofft »

gsich wrote: post #25
voltagex_ wrote: post #23

OT, sort of: I am banned (permanently? [2]) from the #zfsonlinux IRC channel because I connected to it via IRCCloud [1]. It's this kind of attitude that worries me about using it. 1: http://irccloud.com 2: https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux-quaran...

They probably don't want another service storing and analysing your messages. The free version is basically useless: "Stay connected for 2 hours while inactive (permanent for first 7 days)" because of this.

Not an unreasonable policy in the abstract but open channels for free software projects should be publicly and permanently logged, same as mailing lists. Private channels, sure. Other than that, the project should have public logs, at which point it doesn't matter if a for-profit company wants to see those logs because literally anyone can—or could have just joined in the first place.

(Debian also has a policy that you may not publicly log its IRC channels, and I also think it's wrong.)

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#28

Post by MBCook »

ggm wrote: post #24
adtac wrote: post #16

Is there a resource that explains the historical intricacies and licensing issues surrounding ZFS from the beginning? From what I've seen, it's a clusterfuck whichever *nix OS you like.

Definitely feels like it. OSX had its "we're onboard with ZFS" moment which vanished. I am believing this was a licence fubar.

I doubt it would have gotten announced w/o the approval of their giant army of lawyers.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#29

Post by ggm »

As a long-time BSD user (since 1982) this both saddens and heartens me. It saddens me, that the core development path in BSD was not able to sustain being the "reference" model for a wider community. There is no point pretending you can, when nobody else wants to follow that model.

The heartening moment, is that linux and BSD should share code when they can, because its sensiblet to avoid pointless fork. Pointful fork, (and I exclude licence terms mostly) is something we have to deal with. Pointless forking is just a royal pain.

An outcome of this should be that I get more guarantee a ZVOL export/import cycle across Linux/BSD (which btw I have now done about 10 times on 10TB ZFS filesystems) will work with no awkward binary consequence to flag/version mismatch which came about because of two codebases: version mismatch because one was "old" and one is "new" is a different thing.

Re: The Future of ZFS in FreeBSD

#30

Post by p_l »

voltagex_ wrote: post #23

OT, sort of: I am banned (permanently? [2]) from the #zfsonlinux IRC channel because I connected to it via IRCCloud [1]. It's this kind of attitude that worries me about using it. 1: http://irccloud.com 2: https://irc-source.com/channel/freenode/%23zfsonlinux-quaran...

It was a flood prevention system which was triggered by IRCcloud network going broken for a long period of time. It's also used by several other open source channels.
Post reply on HN