4 ms·

ZFS

by Touche 13y ago

ZFS

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
fiatmoney 13y ago
http://zfsonlinux.org/ http://zfsonlinux.org/
- Touche 13y ago
  Sure, but virtually no distros ship this by default or even in their official repos. On FreeBSD it's basically the recommended filesystem.
  - justincormack 13y ago
    They cant ship it for licensing reasons. Which means they cant support it either.
    - sydney6 13y ago
      Apart from that, e.g. each time you update your kernel you would have to recompile the modules for that specific kernel. ZFS is also an FS and i wouldn’t want to play jeopardy every time i do an update.
    - insaneirish 13y ago
      They absolutely can ship it. They choose not to. There is a big difference. It's what happens when ideology is allowed to trump technology, and it is sad. The fact that various distros ship not-open video card drivers shows that for some things, there's a willingness to compromise. This is far "worse" than shipping an open source module, or open source code that is compiled into a module on install, either of which could be done for ZFS.
      - lucian1900 13y ago
        The non-free drivers are allowed to be redistributed by the copyright holders. The reason to not distribute them would be ideological. Linux and ZFS's licenses are incompatible, which would make it illegal to distribute them together. Both ZFS and Linux copyright owners could choose to sue any entity that would distribute Linux with ZFS support.
        insaneirish 13y ago
        You take quite a logical leap from "licenses are incompatible" to "illegal to distribute them together." I'd love to know what led you to that conclusion. As I said to the other poster, you're just spreading FUD.
        bkor 13y ago
        If the licenses are incompatible, then you cannot ship them together. Calling that FUD is a bit rich! Try going through the process at Fedora. The legal team will stop you. Licenses allow you to distribute things despite copyright. Usually distributing software without a license is illegal, though there are exceptions in some countries for music and movies. You can obviously nitpick about that he uses "illegal". However, the discussion was about why ZFS is not distributed. That is what the answer was about, incompatible licenses making it (somewhat) impossible for distributions to carry it. Now various distributions do have e.g. "nonfree" repositories, but incompatible licenses are a big problem. Responding to such concerns with "just spreading FUD" seems to (hopefully) indicate you're not involved with any distribution.
        insaneirish 13y ago
        It is FUD. Gentoo is choosing to ship the modules: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?79312-ZFS-On-Linux-Is-Now-Set-For-quot-Wide-Scale-Deployment-quot&p=322923#post322923 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?79312-ZFS-On-Linux...
        13y ago
  - FooBarWidget 13y ago
    Why is that a problem if it's just an apt-get install away?
    - weland 13y ago
      You depend on people outside your distribution to keep up, otherwise it might break when you upgrade your kernel. It's also basically in a perpetual beta.
  - dscrd 13y ago
    Can you install on root ZFS without too much hackery?
jeffdavis 13y ago
I thought btrfs was going nowhere for a while because it seemed way behind zfs for a long time. But now it looks like it's catching up, and has some nice userspace tools, and some features that I don't even think zfs has (like the option to do overwrite-in-place, but you give up checksums/compression). The user tools seem worse than zfs, but it does look like btrfs will be a leading filesystem soon.
- specto 13y ago
  I wouldn't say soon. Btrfs needs much more robust userspace tools. At the moment, the tools tell you nothing, and recovery is basically impossible. I have lost data several times now. While I had backups since I was using btrfs, I didn't expect to lose data the way that I did. The drive filled up with metadata, and since it didn't have anywhere to rebalance the metadata it couldn't move it, and even if I deleted files it wouldn't make a difference. It happened to me on two occasions. The interesting thing is that btrfs filesystem df showed I only had 80gb total, with a 120gb drive. Decided to go back to xfs for that drive, and I use zfs for my raidz2 array.

ZFS

by Touche 13y ago

ZFS

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

fiatmoney 13y ago

http://zfsonlinux.org/ http://zfsonlinux.org/

Touche 13y ago
Sure, but virtually no distros ship this by default or even in their official repos. On FreeBSD it's basically the recommended filesystem.
- justincormack 13y ago
  They cant ship it for licensing reasons. Which means they cant support it either.
  - sydney6 13y ago
    Apart from that, e.g. each time you update your kernel you would have to recompile the modules for that specific kernel. ZFS is also an FS and i wouldn’t want to play jeopardy every time i do an update.
  - insaneirish 13y ago
    They absolutely can ship it. They choose not to. There is a big difference. It's what happens when ideology is allowed to trump technology, and it is sad. The fact that various distros ship not-open video card drivers shows that for some things, there's a willingness to compromise. This is far "worse" than shipping an open source module, or open source code that is compiled into a module on install, either of which could be done for ZFS.
    - lucian1900 13y ago
      The non-free drivers are allowed to be redistributed by the copyright holders. The reason to not distribute them would be ideological. Linux and ZFS's licenses are incompatible, which would make it illegal to distribute them together. Both ZFS and Linux copyright owners could choose to sue any entity that would distribute Linux with ZFS support.
      - insaneirish 13y ago
        You take quite a logical leap from "licenses are incompatible" to "illegal to distribute them together." I'd love to know what led you to that conclusion. As I said to the other poster, you're just spreading FUD.
        bkor 13y ago
        If the licenses are incompatible, then you cannot ship them together. Calling that FUD is a bit rich! Try going through the process at Fedora. The legal team will stop you. Licenses allow you to distribute things despite copyright. Usually distributing software without a license is illegal, though there are exceptions in some countries for music and movies. You can obviously nitpick about that he uses "illegal". However, the discussion was about why ZFS is not distributed. That is what the answer was about, incompatible licenses making it (somewhat) impossible for distributions to carry it. Now various distributions do have e.g. "nonfree" repositories, but incompatible licenses are a big problem. Responding to such concerns with "just spreading FUD" seems to (hopefully) indicate you're not involved with any distribution.
        insaneirish 13y ago
        It is FUD. Gentoo is choosing to ship the modules: http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?79312-ZFS-On-Linux-Is-Now-Set-For-quot-Wide-Scale-Deployment-quot&p=322923#post322923 http://phoronix.com/forums/showthread.php?79312-ZFS-On-Linux...
        13y ago
- FooBarWidget 13y ago
  Why is that a problem if it's just an apt-get install away?
  - weland 13y ago
    You depend on people outside your distribution to keep up, otherwise it might break when you upgrade your kernel. It's also basically in a perpetual beta.
- dscrd 13y ago
  Can you install on root ZFS without too much hackery?

jeffdavis 13y ago

I thought btrfs was going nowhere for a while because it seemed way behind zfs for a long time. But now it looks like it's catching up, and has some nice userspace tools, and some features that I don't even think zfs has (like the option to do overwrite-in-place, but you give up checksums/compression). The user tools seem worse than zfs, but it does look like btrfs will be a leading filesystem soon.

specto 13y ago
I wouldn't say soon. Btrfs needs much more robust userspace tools. At the moment, the tools tell you nothing, and recovery is basically impossible. I have lost data several times now. While I had backups since I was using btrfs, I didn't expect to lose data the way that I did. The drive filled up with metadata, and since it didn't have anywhere to rebalance the metadata it couldn't move it, and even if I deleted files it wouldn't make a difference. It happened to me on two occasions. The interesting thing is that btrfs filesystem df showed I only had 80gb total, with a 120gb drive. Decided to go back to xfs for that drive, and I use zfs for my raidz2 array.