3 ms·

Having it stable in mainline in 3-4 would also be a big achievement. The filesystem part in Linux is kind of stagnating: * ZFS will forever be problematic beca

by tpetry 4y ago

Having it stable in mainline in 3-4 would also be a big achievement. The filesystem part in Linux is kind of stagnating: * ZFS will forever be problematic because of licensing reasons * BTRFS stability is widely untrusted after their problems many years ago * ext4 and xfs don't have data checksumming * To get the same benefits of ZFS you currently need to stack a lot of device mapper plugins

pabs3 4y ago
There is a potential legal solution for ZFS, but it requires help from Oracle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31420769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31420769 Apparently the incompatibility wasn't even intentional when Sun wrote CDDLv1.
- bubblethink 4y ago
  Sparc, Solaris, and various zfs based products that Oracle sells still have a shelf life of a decade, give or take. There is little reason for them to do anything.
  - pabs3 4y ago
    Someone on LWN seems to think that Solaris/SPARC are essentially EOL already for Oracle and the scales are tipping towards having ZFS in Linux mainline. https://lwn.net/Articles/894956/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894956/
sleepycatgirl 4y ago
Yeah, I use ZFS, and with some distros its... quite painful to get root-on-zfs, On the other hand, I use NixOS, and ZFS is nearly as easy to set up as any other filesystem, and afterwards its just bliss.
- mekster 4y ago
  ResHat (Fedora) is definitely not friendly against zfs. Probably because they think Oracle will never help and would rather use something else. But if you're on Ubuntu or any other distro that require less efforts, you're missing much by using legacy filesystems.
mekster 4y ago
How is it a problem from the user's point of view? If you're on Ubuntu, even if you have ext4 on root, all you do is install a single package and allocate an empty partition for zfs and you're good to go and it's stupid to miss out on what zfs offers by sticking to ext4 forever. Flexible space allocation between volumes, instant snapshotting, transparent compression and backing up the entire filesystem to a remote server is already available if you choose to use zfs. Far better than using btrfs with endless report of corruption.
- nwmcsween 4y ago
  Go look at the openzfs issue tracker, the people that work on zfs seem spread pretty thin for the amount of issues.

by tpetry 4y ago

pabs3 4y ago

There is a potential legal solution for ZFS, but it requires help from Oracle: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31420769 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31420769 Apparently the incompatibility wasn't even intentional when Sun wrote CDDLv1.

bubblethink 4y ago
Sparc, Solaris, and various zfs based products that Oracle sells still have a shelf life of a decade, give or take. There is little reason for them to do anything.
- pabs3 4y ago
  Someone on LWN seems to think that Solaris/SPARC are essentially EOL already for Oracle and the scales are tipping towards having ZFS in Linux mainline. https://lwn.net/Articles/894956/ https://lwn.net/Articles/894956/

sleepycatgirl 4y ago

Yeah, I use ZFS, and with some distros its... quite painful to get root-on-zfs, On the other hand, I use NixOS, and ZFS is nearly as easy to set up as any other filesystem, and afterwards its just bliss.

mekster 4y ago
ResHat (Fedora) is definitely not friendly against zfs. Probably because they think Oracle will never help and would rather use something else. But if you're on Ubuntu or any other distro that require less efforts, you're missing much by using legacy filesystems.

mekster 4y ago

How is it a problem from the user's point of view? If you're on Ubuntu, even if you have ext4 on root, all you do is install a single package and allocate an empty partition for zfs and you're good to go and it's stupid to miss out on what zfs offers by sticking to ext4 forever. Flexible space allocation between volumes, instant snapshotting, transparent compression and backing up the entire filesystem to a remote server is already available if you choose to use zfs. Far better than using btrfs with endless report of corruption.

nwmcsween 4y ago
Go look at the openzfs issue tracker, the people that work on zfs seem spread pretty thin for the amount of issues.