5 ms·

Agreed, ZFS has its caveats, but feature-wise and stability-wise ZFS is to -- a large degree -- what BTRFS should have been. The licensing is incredibly unfort

Agreed, ZFS has its caveats, but feature-wise and stability-wise ZFS is to -- a large degree -- what BTRFS should have been. The licensing is incredibly unfortunate, though. (I don't care about the reasoning for the license, it's just bad that it isn't GPL-compatible so that it could be compatible with the most prolific kernel in the world.) Anyway, back to BTRFS-vs-ZFS. It seems abundantly clear that a filesystem is (no longer) a thing where you can just "throw an early idea out there" and hope that others will pick up the slack and fix all the bugs. There's just too much design (not code) that goes into these things that it's not just about code any more. My (small) bet right now as to the "next gen" FS on Linux is on bcachefs[1, 2]. It sounds much sounder from a design perspective than BFS, plus it's built on the already-proven bcache, etc. etc. (Read the page for details.) [1] https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs [1] https://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/Bcachefs/ https://bcache.evilpiepirate.org/Bcachefs/

jen20 10y ago
According to Canonical, it _is_ GPL compatible. Either way, that shouldn't get in the way of the best file system in existence being used with the kernel of last resort.
- georgyo 10y ago
  The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL license. The GPL however is not incompatible with the CDDL. This means Linux copyright owners could sue ZoL binary distributers, but Oracle could not. However no one is shipping ZoL binaries, only the source code. The code itself is 100% conflict free.
  - aidenn0 10y ago
    Canonical ships ZoL binaries as of April 2016. They claim doing so doesn't violate the GPL since they are shipping it as a module rather than built into the kernel.
    - mistat 10y ago
      So you're saying it's only going to be available in user space and never in the kernel? Why don't oracle just relicense it?
      - _joel 10y ago
        No, they're supplied as kernel modules, packaged separately from the kernel. Before Ubuntu 15.10 you could still install it as a DKMS module (such that it compiled on the system it's being installed on). Now they just ship the pre-built .ko's, saving the user compilation time. There are still userland tools to interact with it zpool, zfs etc.

jen20 10y ago

According to Canonical, it _is_ GPL compatible. Either way, that shouldn't get in the way of the best file system in existence being used with the kernel of last resort.

georgyo 10y ago
The CDDL is incompatible with the GPL license. The GPL however is not incompatible with the CDDL. This means Linux copyright owners could sue ZoL binary distributers, but Oracle could not. However no one is shipping ZoL binaries, only the source code. The code itself is 100% conflict free.
- aidenn0 10y ago
  Canonical ships ZoL binaries as of April 2016. They claim doing so doesn't violate the GPL since they are shipping it as a module rather than built into the kernel.
  - mistat 10y ago
    So you're saying it's only going to be available in user space and never in the kernel? Why don't oracle just relicense it?
    - _joel 10y ago
      No, they're supplied as kernel modules, packaged separately from the kernel. Before Ubuntu 15.10 you could still install it as a DKMS module (such that it compiled on the system it's being installed on). Now they just ship the pre-built .ko's, saving the user compilation time. There are still userland tools to interact with it zpool, zfs etc.