4 ms·

It is open source, but I wouldn't exactly call it free as in freedom due to GPL-incompatibility. It has less eyes on it, requires more maintenance due to being

It is open source, but I wouldn't exactly call it free as in freedom due to GPL-incompatibility. It has less eyes on it, requires more maintenance due to being out-of-tree, and coming from Oracle, it sounds like a legal minefield. Not that I personally risk anything, but I feel like btrfs is more future-proof (safer from being discontinued). Plus, it works OOTB on most Linux computers. Its ubiquity allows me to use it in numerous places. It is quite flexible and doesn't require that much resources (I hear ZFS is quite RAM-hungry?). It isn't perfect either, use what suits you!

boomboomsubban 6y ago
>Its ubiquity allows me to use it in numerous places Does btrfs work on anything except Linux? Apparently ReactOS too creating limited Windows support, but it's not very portable. It's a strange thing to praise btrfs for when comparing to ZFS. >coming from Oracle, Fun fact, btrfs comes from Oracle.
tomnipotent 6y ago
> I hear ZFS is quite RAM-hungry? Only if you use deduplication (off by default), in which case the rule of thumb is 1-5GB of RAM per 1TB of disk. Otherwise you can get away with less memory.
zdw 6y ago
OpenZFS has been based on the non-Oracle illumos fork of Solaris for >10 years, and has considerable backing from both corporate and community sources. The CDDL is a non-issue in most cases, and actually preferable to the GPL as it allows for the code to be integrated into BSD and Solaris-derived systems.
- xxpor 6y ago
  The most serious backing seems to be from LLNL, which slightly concerns me as the funding situation for the work could be more perilous than a corporate source.
  - secabeen 6y ago
    There's also significant backing from Datto, which uses ZFS in their storage appliances, and Delphix, which uses ZFS in their database appliances.
craftkiller 6y ago
> It is open source, but I wouldn't exactly call it free as in freedom due to GPL-incompatibility The CDDL is essentially the same license as the GPL except it only applies to the files under the CDDL as opposed to the GPL which imposes its rules to the entire project for every project that links it. Any software under the CDDL is exactly as free as in freedom as GPL code. CDDL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/common-development-and-distribution-license-(cddl-1.0)-explained https://tldrlegal.com/license/common-development-and-distrib... GPL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2 https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2 Short description of the difference in the terms section on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  Just to further drive home the point, the FSF description of the license starts with >This is a free software license People are free to dislike ZFS, but it certainly is free software http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:CDDLv1.0 http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:CDDLv1.0
  - MayeulC 6y ago
    I stand corrected on that point, thanks to both of you :)

boomboomsubban 6y ago

>Its ubiquity allows me to use it in numerous places Does btrfs work on anything except Linux? Apparently ReactOS too creating limited Windows support, but it's not very portable. It's a strange thing to praise btrfs for when comparing to ZFS. >coming from Oracle, Fun fact, btrfs comes from Oracle.

tomnipotent 6y ago

> I hear ZFS is quite RAM-hungry? Only if you use deduplication (off by default), in which case the rule of thumb is 1-5GB of RAM per 1TB of disk. Otherwise you can get away with less memory.

zdw 6y ago

OpenZFS has been based on the non-Oracle illumos fork of Solaris for >10 years, and has considerable backing from both corporate and community sources. The CDDL is a non-issue in most cases, and actually preferable to the GPL as it allows for the code to be integrated into BSD and Solaris-derived systems.

xxpor 6y ago
The most serious backing seems to be from LLNL, which slightly concerns me as the funding situation for the work could be more perilous than a corporate source.
- secabeen 6y ago
  There's also significant backing from Datto, which uses ZFS in their storage appliances, and Delphix, which uses ZFS in their database appliances.

craftkiller 6y ago

> It is open source, but I wouldn't exactly call it free as in freedom due to GPL-incompatibility The CDDL is essentially the same license as the GPL except it only applies to the files under the CDDL as opposed to the GPL which imposes its rules to the entire project for every project that links it. Any software under the CDDL is exactly as free as in freedom as GPL code. CDDL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/common-development-and-distribution-license-(cddl-1.0)-explained https://tldrlegal.com/license/common-development-and-distrib... GPL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2 https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-general-public-license-v2 Short description of the difference in the terms section on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distribution_License#Terms https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Development_and_Distrib...

boomboomsubban 6y ago
Just to further drive home the point, the FSF description of the license starts with >This is a free software license People are free to dislike ZFS, but it certainly is free software http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:CDDLv1.0 http://directory.fsf.org/wiki/License:CDDLv1.0
- MayeulC 6y ago
  I stand corrected on that point, thanks to both of you :)