6 ms·

> [ZFS is] only great due to the lack of competitors in the checksummed-CoW-raid category. You forgot robust native encryption, network transparent dump/restor

by e12e 3y ago

> [ZFS is] only great due to the lack of competitors in the checksummed-CoW-raid category. You forgot robust native encryption, network transparent dump/restore (ZFS send/receive) - and broad platform support (not so much anymore). For a while you could have a solid FS with encryption support for your USB hd that could be safely used with Linux, *BSD, Windows, Open/FOSS Solaris and MacOS.

josephg 3y ago
Is it just the implementation of zfs which is owned by oracle now? I wonder how hard it would be to write a compatible clean room reimplementation of zfs in rust or something, from the spec. Even if it doesn’t implement every feature from the real zfs, it would still be handy for OS compatibility reasons.
- nine_k 3y ago
  I would suppose it would take years of effort? and a lot of testing in search of performance enhancements and elimination of corner cases. Even if the code of the FS itself is created in a provably correct manner (a very tall order even with Rust), real hardware has a lot of quirks which need to be addressed.
  - chasil 3y ago
    I wish the btrfs (and perhaps bcachefs) projects would collaborate with OpenZFS to rewrite equivalent code that they all used. It might take years, but washing Sun out of OpenZFS is the only thing that will free it.
    - mustache_kimono 3y ago
      OpenZFS is already free and open source. Linux kernel developers should just stop punching themselves in face. One way to solve the ZFS issue, Linus Torvalds could call a meeting of project leadership, and say, "Can we all agree that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux? It seems pretty obvious to anyone who understands the meaning of copyright term of art 'derived work' and the origin of ZFS ... Good. We shall add a commit which indicates such to the COPYING file [0], like we have for programs that interface at the syscall boundary to clear up any further confusion." Can you imagine trying to bring a copyright infringement suit (with no damages!) in such an instance? The ZFS hair shirt is a self imposed by semi-religious Linux wackadoos. [0]: See, https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...
      - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. (I am one of these guys who thinks what Ubuntu is doing is crossing the line. To package two pieces of software whose license forbids you from distributing their combination in a way that "they are not combined but can be combined with a single click" is stretching it too much. ) It would be much simpler for Oracle to simply relicense older versions of ZFS under another license.
        mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. Why? Linus said such modules and distribution were acceptable re: AFS, an instance which is directly on point. See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
        AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? That would not only violate the GPL, it would also violate AFS's license... The only thing he's saying that there is that he's not even 100% sure whether AFS module is a derived work or not (if it was, it would be a violation _just to distribute the module by itself_!). Go imagine what his opinion will be on someone distributing a kernel already almost pre-linked with ZFS. Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days...
        mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't, if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? > Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days... Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file.
- kaba0 3y ago
  > wonder how hard it would be to write a compatible clean room reimplementation of zfs in rust or something, from the spec As for every non-trivial application - almost impossible.
- 0x457 3y ago
  Not exactly ZFS in Rust, but more like a replacement for ZFS in Rust: https://github.com/redox-os/tfs https://github.com/redox-os/tfs Worked stalled, though. Not compatible, but I was working on overlayfs for freebsd in rust, and it was not pleasant at all. Can't imagine making an entire "real" file system in Rust.
- boomboomsubban 3y ago
  If I understand things correctly, the only thing Oracle owns that could impact Open ZFS is the patents the CDDL permits the usage of. Would a clean room implementation even matter?

by e12e 3y ago

josephg 3y ago

Is it just the implementation of zfs which is owned by oracle now? I wonder how hard it would be to write a compatible clean room reimplementation of zfs in rust or something, from the spec. Even if it doesn’t implement every feature from the real zfs, it would still be handy for OS compatibility reasons.

nine_k 3y ago
I would suppose it would take years of effort? and a lot of testing in search of performance enhancements and elimination of corner cases. Even if the code of the FS itself is created in a provably correct manner (a very tall order even with Rust), real hardware has a lot of quirks which need to be addressed.
- chasil 3y ago
  I wish the btrfs (and perhaps bcachefs) projects would collaborate with OpenZFS to rewrite equivalent code that they all used. It might take years, but washing Sun out of OpenZFS is the only thing that will free it.
  - mustache_kimono 3y ago
    OpenZFS is already free and open source. Linux kernel developers should just stop punching themselves in face. One way to solve the ZFS issue, Linus Torvalds could call a meeting of project leadership, and say, "Can we all agree that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux? It seems pretty obvious to anyone who understands the meaning of copyright term of art 'derived work' and the origin of ZFS ... Good. We shall add a commit which indicates such to the COPYING file [0], like we have for programs that interface at the syscall boundary to clear up any further confusion." Can you imagine trying to bring a copyright infringement suit (with no damages!) in such an instance? The ZFS hair shirt is a self imposed by semi-religious Linux wackadoos. [0]: See, https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/exceptions/Linux-syscall-note https://github.com/torvalds/linux/blob/master/LICENSES/excep...
    - AshamedCaptain 3y ago
      Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. (I am one of these guys who thinks what Ubuntu is doing is crossing the line. To package two pieces of software whose license forbids you from distributing their combination in a way that "they are not combined but can be combined with a single click" is stretching it too much. ) It would be much simpler for Oracle to simply relicense older versions of ZFS under another license.
      - mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Even if you were to be able to say that OpenZFS is not a derived work of Linux, all it would allow you to do is to distribute OpenZFS. You would _still_ not be able to distribute OpenZFS + Linux as a combined work. Why? Linus said such modules and distribution were acceptable re: AFS, an instance which is directly on point. See: https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228 https://lkml.org/lkml/2003/12/3/228
        AshamedCaptain 3y ago
        Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? That would not only violate the GPL, it would also violate AFS's license... The only thing he's saying that there is that he's not even 100% sure whether AFS module is a derived work or not (if it was, it would be a violation _just to distribute the module by itself_!). Go imagine what his opinion will be on someone distributing a kernel already almost pre-linked with ZFS. Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days...
        mustache_kimono 3y ago
        > Where is he saying that you can distribute the combined work? What's your reasoning as to why one couldn't, if we grant Linus's reasoning re: AFS as it applies to ZFS? > Not that it matters, since he's not the license author not even the copyright holder these days... Linux kernel community has seen fit to give its assurances re: other clarifications/exceptions. See the COPYING file.
kaba0 3y ago
> wonder how hard it would be to write a compatible clean room reimplementation of zfs in rust or something, from the spec As for every non-trivial application - almost impossible.
0x457 3y ago
Not exactly ZFS in Rust, but more like a replacement for ZFS in Rust: https://github.com/redox-os/tfs https://github.com/redox-os/tfs Worked stalled, though. Not compatible, but I was working on overlayfs for freebsd in rust, and it was not pleasant at all. Can't imagine making an entire "real" file system in Rust.
boomboomsubban 3y ago
If I understand things correctly, the only thing Oracle owns that could impact Open ZFS is the patents the CDDL permits the usage of. Would a clean room implementation even matter?