5 ms·

It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(

by znpy 3y ago

gigatexal 3y ago
Same. Maybe one day. Though I don’t know what will happen first: it gets mainlined into the kernel or we get HL3
- Filligree 3y ago
  So long as the kernel developers are actively hostile to ZFS… You will take your Btrfs and you will like it.
  - gigatexal 3y ago
    I’m holding out for bcachefs and still building ZFS via dkms on current kernels like a madman.
    - Filligree 3y ago
      I’m running bcachefs on my desktop right now. It’s promising, but there’s… bugs. Right now only performance oriented ones, that I’ve noticed, but I’d wait a bit longer.
      - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
        Can you elaborate on what kind of bugs? I've been following bcachefs casually because I am very excited for its eventual stabilization. But I am very conservative with my main storage array.
        terinjokes 3y ago
        Not GP, but I tried it out a few weeks ago. I experienced it working for about 15-20 minutes, then it stopped doing any I/O to the disks until I rebooted. After it happened a few times in one evening, I switched to something else.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
tux3 3y ago
We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
- betaby 3y ago
  > successor filesystem Which one?
  - pa7ch 3y ago
    bcachefs presumably
    - j16sdiz 3y ago
      we have heard the same with btrfs.
      - chungy 3y ago
        bcachefs has had time to actually mature instead of being kneecapped early on by an angry Linus Torvalds when btrfs's on disk format changed and broke his Fedora install.
      - mappu 3y ago
        Btrfs on mdadm is an excellent ZFS alternative.
        mustache_kimono 3y ago
        But it's not really an alternative, is it? It's near-beer.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  > The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously. Source, for someone who isn't following kernel mailing lists?
Nextgrid 3y ago
Has the whole license incompatibility thing actually been tested/litigated in court? I heard Canonical has (at least at some point) shipped prebuilt ZFS. I understand that in-tree inclusion brings its own set of problems, but I’m just asking about redistribution of binaries - the same binaries you are allowed to build locally. It would be nice to have a precedent deciding on this bullshit argument once and for all so distros can freely ship prebuilt binary modules and bring Linux to the modern times when it comes to filesystems. The whole situation is ridiculous. I'd understand if this was about money, but who exactly gets hurt by users getting a prebuilt module from somewhere, vs building exactly the same thing locally from freely-available source?
- askiiart 3y ago
  I can confirm that Ubuntu ships prebuilt ZFS, I used a live Ubuntu USB to copy some data off a ZFS pool just a couple weeks ago.
- chungy 3y ago
  The only entity to start a litigation cycle is Oracle, and they've either been uninterested or know they can't win. Canonical is the only entity they have any chance of going after; Canonical's lawyers already decided there was no license conflict. Linus Torvalds doesn't feel like being the guinea pig by risking ZFS in the mainline kernel. A totally reasonable position while the CDDL+GPL resolution is still ultimately unknown. (And honestly, with OpenZFS supporting a very wide range of Linux versions and FreeBSD at the same time, I have the feeling that mainline inclusion in Linux might not be the best outcome anyway.)
  - bubblethink 3y ago
    Not to mention, bcachefs is making progress towards mainline.
  - Nextgrid 3y ago
    I wonder what Oracle would litigate over though? My understanding is that licenses are generally used by copyright holders to restrict what others can do with a work so the holder can profit off the work and/or keep a competitive advantage. Here I do not see this argument applying since the source is freely available to use and extend; the license explicitly allows someone to compile it and use it. In this case providing prebuilt binaries is more akin to providing a "cache" for something you can (and are allowed to) build locally (using ZFS-DKMS for example) using source you are once again allowed to acquire and use. What prejudice does it cause to Oracle that the “make” command is ran on Ubuntu’s build servers as opposed to users’ individual machines? Have similar cases been litigated before where the argument was about who runs the make command, with source that either party has otherwise a right to download & use?

It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(

by znpy 3y ago

It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(

gigatexal 3y ago

Same. Maybe one day. Though I don’t know what will happen first: it gets mainlined into the kernel or we get HL3

Filligree 3y ago
So long as the kernel developers are actively hostile to ZFS… You will take your Btrfs and you will like it.
- gigatexal 3y ago
  I’m holding out for bcachefs and still building ZFS via dkms on current kernels like a madman.
  - Filligree 3y ago
    I’m running bcachefs on my desktop right now. It’s promising, but there’s… bugs. Right now only performance oriented ones, that I’ve noticed, but I’d wait a bit longer.
    - thrtythreeforty 3y ago
      Can you elaborate on what kind of bugs? I've been following bcachefs casually because I am very excited for its eventual stabilization. But I am very conservative with my main storage array.
      - terinjokes 3y ago
        Not GP, but I tried it out a few weeks ago. I experienced it working for about 15-20 minutes, then it stopped doing any I/O to the disks until I rebooted. After it happened a few times in one evening, I switched to something else.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

tux3 3y ago

We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.

betaby 3y ago
> successor filesystem Which one?
- pa7ch 3y ago
  bcachefs presumably
  - j16sdiz 3y ago
    we have heard the same with btrfs.
    - chungy 3y ago
      bcachefs has had time to actually mature instead of being kneecapped early on by an angry Linus Torvalds when btrfs's on disk format changed and broke his Fedora install.
    - mappu 3y ago
      Btrfs on mdadm is an excellent ZFS alternative.
      - mustache_kimono 3y ago
        But it's not really an alternative, is it? It's near-beer.
Nextgrid 3y ago
> The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously. Source, for someone who isn't following kernel mailing lists?

Nextgrid 3y ago

Has the whole license incompatibility thing actually been tested/litigated in court? I heard Canonical has (at least at some point) shipped prebuilt ZFS. I understand that in-tree inclusion brings its own set of problems, but I’m just asking about redistribution of binaries - the same binaries you are allowed to build locally. It would be nice to have a precedent deciding on this bullshit argument once and for all so distros can freely ship prebuilt binary modules and bring Linux to the modern times when it comes to filesystems. The whole situation is ridiculous. I'd understand if this was about money, but who exactly gets hurt by users getting a prebuilt module from somewhere, vs building exactly the same thing locally from freely-available source?

askiiart 3y ago
I can confirm that Ubuntu ships prebuilt ZFS, I used a live Ubuntu USB to copy some data off a ZFS pool just a couple weeks ago.
chungy 3y ago
The only entity to start a litigation cycle is Oracle, and they've either been uninterested or know they can't win. Canonical is the only entity they have any chance of going after; Canonical's lawyers already decided there was no license conflict. Linus Torvalds doesn't feel like being the guinea pig by risking ZFS in the mainline kernel. A totally reasonable position while the CDDL+GPL resolution is still ultimately unknown. (And honestly, with OpenZFS supporting a very wide range of Linux versions and FreeBSD at the same time, I have the feeling that mainline inclusion in Linux might not be the best outcome anyway.)
- bubblethink 3y ago
  Not to mention, bcachefs is making progress towards mainline.
- Nextgrid 3y ago
  I wonder what Oracle would litigate over though? My understanding is that licenses are generally used by copyright holders to restrict what others can do with a work so the holder can profit off the work and/or keep a competitive advantage. Here I do not see this argument applying since the source is freely available to use and extend; the license explicitly allows someone to compile it and use it. In this case providing prebuilt binaries is more akin to providing a "cache" for something you can (and are allowed to) build locally (using ZFS-DKMS for example) using source you are once again allowed to acquire and use. What prejudice does it cause to Oracle that the “make” command is ran on Ubuntu’s build servers as opposed to users’ individual machines? Have similar cases been litigated before where the argument was about who runs the make command, with source that either party has otherwise a right to download & use?