3 ms·

> Both ZFS and btrfs are owned/driven by Oracle. While ZFS is owned by Oracle they certainly don't drive development. Oracle has their closed source version of

> Both ZFS and btrfs are owned/driven by Oracle. While ZFS is owned by Oracle they certainly don't drive development. Oracle has their closed source version of ZFS used in the now dead Solaris. Then their is OpenZFS which is where the majority of research and development takes place and where Illumos, FreeBSD, MacOS and Linux developers upstream their work.

ansible 9y ago
And, from one of the linked articles, SuSE is the biggest contributor to btrfs. We've been running btrfs in production for our small shop for a couple years. We've had one incident, but not too many problems, really. Though, next time, I might not be using btrfs RAID-1, and instead use the regular MD. I'd still want the on-disk checksums for data, and the snapshots, which are awesome.
- mbreese 9y ago
  But when Oracle bought Sun, I'm fairly certain Oracle was the driver. (Didn't they employ the initial developer?) SuSE just doesn't have the same level of resources that Oracle can bring to bear. At the time, btrfs was a crucial feature for the next version of Linux because of ZFS. When Oracle bought Sun, that competitive pressure was gone.
mbreese 9y ago
I'm not saying Oracle is driving development (of either btrfs or ZFS). That's the problem! Both projects feel very stagnant. You can't argue that OpenZFS has close to the amount of resources to put into ZFS that Sun did (pre-Oracle). While I run ZFS (FreeBSD and ZoL) and prefer it over pretty much anything.... ZFS is not nearly as popular as it might have been if it was released with a GPL-compatible license. At the time, this was intentional by Sun, who knew Linux was a competitor to Solaris, so I can't say that I blame them...