61–70 of 571 posts
"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." - Linus I have a strong feeling Linus has never actually used ZFS.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly asking, how Btrfs compares to ZFS? There's also Lustre but it's a different beast altogether for a different scenario.
On the surface, btrfs is pretty close to zfs. Once you actually use them, you discover all the ways that btrfs is a pain and zfs is a (minor) joy: - snapshot management - online scrub - data integrity - disk management I lost data from perfectly healthy-appearing btrfs systems twice. I've never lost data on maintained zfs systems, and I now trust a lot more data to zfs than I ever have to btrfs.
Granted, at enterprise scale this hardly matters because you can just send-receive to rebuild pools if you have enough spares, but for consumer-grade deployments it's a non-negligible annoyance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Honestly asking, how Btrfs compares to ZFS? There's also Lustre but it's a different beast altogether for a different scenario.
On the surface, btrfs is pretty close to zfs. Once you actually use them, you discover all the ways that btrfs is a pain and zfs is a (minor) joy: - snapshot management - online scrub - data integrity - disk management I lost data from perfectly healthy-appearing btrfs systems twice. I've never lost data on maintained zfs systems, and I now trust a lot more data to zfs than I ever have to btrfs.
> I lost data from perfectly healthy-appearing btrfs systems twice.
I still consider btrfs as beta-level software. This is why I never looked into it very seriously and asked this question.
Looks like btrfs has something around five years to be considered serious at the scale where ZFS just starting to warm-up.
So, is Linus pretty much the same guy? I know he took some time off and the kernel team adopted a code-o-conduct, and had that introspective e-mail ... but now that he's back ... is it any different?
Most of his worst rants were directed at maintainers who commited changes that resulted in bugs in the kernel.
The OP of this thread is from a user, so perhaps we need to wait until another big bug gets commited to see the results of his hiatus.
So, is Linus pretty much the same guy? I know he took some time off and the kernel team adopted a code-o-conduct, and had that introspective e-mail ... but now that he's back ... is it any different?
He never agreed to roll over and agree with every technological persuasion, he agreed to be nicer to people. This was nice to people, but rude to a technology (ZFS), that seems consistent.
So, is Linus pretty much the same guy? I know he took some time off and the kernel team adopted a code-o-conduct, and had that introspective e-mail ... but now that he's back ... is it any different?
Probably should add Java to that list. The sooner Oracle stops existing, the better.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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…
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 corporative vendors sometimes have NDAs which preclude releasing open source drivers.
Linux is able to run proprietary userspace software. Even most open source zealots agree that this is necessary. Why are all drivers expected to use the GPL?
---
P.S. Never mind the fact that ZFS is open source, just not GPL compatible.
P.P.S. There's a lot of technical underpinnings here that I'll readily admit I don't understand. If I speak out of ignorance, please feel free to correct me.