3 ms·

The previous poster clearly does not understand that ZFS on Linux is essentially a native port with very careful dancing around licensing borders.

mbreese 12y ago
The previous poster is well aware of what ZFS on Linux is. Licensing matters. It may not matter in terms of what I can do with my servers. I can compile ZFS and run it just fine on Linux. But you won't find Red Hat doing it. You won't find IBM doing it. Linus won't be adding it into the mainline tree anytime soon. This means that there may be "technical" solutions to getting ZFS running on Linux, but that also means that there will be artificial barriers in place that will make it more difficult to run, test, deploy, and support. These things matter. I might use ZFS for Linux on a personal workstation, but there is no way that I'd add it to a production cluster.
- justizin 12y ago
  Right, but had you read the discussion this thread is about, you can see that Debian is working on a roadmap that includes binary drivers, shipped with the OS, available during the install. Linus has traditionally done a poor job of ensuring that filesystems will work well in production, ext4 being a _fantastic_ example of that. I appreciate the work he does, but I don't quite give a fuck if he is scanning the source for my filesystem. I've seen more ext4 filesystems go corrupt than all others combined. Red Hat and IBM can, equally, kiss my ass, I've never found either to be reliable. I don't see how DKMS is really an artificial barrier to run, test, deploy, and support something. It is, in fact, the opposite of a barrier - it's a tool.
  - mbreese 12y ago
    Debian is working on a roadmap that includes shipping source drivers to be slipstreamed in as dynamic modules. DKMS is a tool, but it's hardly the same as a good, in tree module. I remember having tons of issues with DKMS WiFi drivers back when I still ran a Linux laptop (10-ish years ago). If you get an upstream kernel upgrade and the ZFS DKMS module doesn't compile against it, you're screwed. Can you imagine trying to debug DKMS issues with your main filesystem? I hope you leave an ext2/3/4 volume around for booting and root. I'm glad that you feel like you can discount the work that IBM and Red Hat have done to advance Linux, but they've done a ton to make sure that Linux could take over data centers. Good to know... Thanks!
- ryao 12y ago
  I am working on tearing down barriers to this. Expect to see the fruit of that effort later this year. That said, I do not consider absence from Linus' tree to be a barrier because being in Linus' tree limits the ability of end users to obtain bug fixes. That is a problem other filesystems have that I am happy to see ZFSOnLinux avoid. Also, Linus Torvalds and I discussed the possibility of merging ZFS into his tree because of feedback like yours. In short, Linus has no interest in merging ZFS into his tree. Linus thinks that it might enable Oracle might sue people unless they provide a signed-off to confirm that the code is under the CDDL. He also thinks that the kernel signed off keeps Oracle from suing people over btrfs when software patents are a likely loophole. Lastly, I realize that my statement about the signed off confirming that the code is under the CDDL might sound strange. However, there are two cases to consider. The first case involves source code. The GPL does not restrict the redistribution of source code, so there would be no problem. The second case is binaries, which the GPL does restrict in situations in which a court of law would consider to be a derived work. Being a module only option should be sufficient to deal with that. Linus did not seem to have any problem with that idea. However, he insists on Oracle's signed off with the preference that it be Larry Elison.

mbreese 12y ago

The previous poster is well aware of what ZFS on Linux is. Licensing matters. It may not matter in terms of what I can do with my servers. I can compile ZFS and run it just fine on Linux. But you won't find Red Hat doing it. You won't find IBM doing it. Linus won't be adding it into the mainline tree anytime soon. This means that there may be "technical" solutions to getting ZFS running on Linux, but that also means that there will be artificial barriers in place that will make it more difficult to run, test, deploy, and support. These things matter. I might use ZFS for Linux on a personal workstation, but there is no way that I'd add it to a production cluster.

justizin 12y ago
Right, but had you read the discussion this thread is about, you can see that Debian is working on a roadmap that includes binary drivers, shipped with the OS, available during the install. Linus has traditionally done a poor job of ensuring that filesystems will work well in production, ext4 being a _fantastic_ example of that. I appreciate the work he does, but I don't quite give a fuck if he is scanning the source for my filesystem. I've seen more ext4 filesystems go corrupt than all others combined. Red Hat and IBM can, equally, kiss my ass, I've never found either to be reliable. I don't see how DKMS is really an artificial barrier to run, test, deploy, and support something. It is, in fact, the opposite of a barrier - it's a tool.
- mbreese 12y ago
  Debian is working on a roadmap that includes shipping source drivers to be slipstreamed in as dynamic modules. DKMS is a tool, but it's hardly the same as a good, in tree module. I remember having tons of issues with DKMS WiFi drivers back when I still ran a Linux laptop (10-ish years ago). If you get an upstream kernel upgrade and the ZFS DKMS module doesn't compile against it, you're screwed. Can you imagine trying to debug DKMS issues with your main filesystem? I hope you leave an ext2/3/4 volume around for booting and root. I'm glad that you feel like you can discount the work that IBM and Red Hat have done to advance Linux, but they've done a ton to make sure that Linux could take over data centers. Good to know... Thanks!
ryao 12y ago
I am working on tearing down barriers to this. Expect to see the fruit of that effort later this year. That said, I do not consider absence from Linus' tree to be a barrier because being in Linus' tree limits the ability of end users to obtain bug fixes. That is a problem other filesystems have that I am happy to see ZFSOnLinux avoid. Also, Linus Torvalds and I discussed the possibility of merging ZFS into his tree because of feedback like yours. In short, Linus has no interest in merging ZFS into his tree. Linus thinks that it might enable Oracle might sue people unless they provide a signed-off to confirm that the code is under the CDDL. He also thinks that the kernel signed off keeps Oracle from suing people over btrfs when software patents are a likely loophole. Lastly, I realize that my statement about the signed off confirming that the code is under the CDDL might sound strange. However, there are two cases to consider. The first case involves source code. The GPL does not restrict the redistribution of source code, so there would be no problem. The second case is binaries, which the GPL does restrict in situations in which a court of law would consider to be a derived work. Being a module only option should be sufficient to deal with that. Linus did not seem to have any problem with that idea. However, he insists on Oracle's signed off with the preference that it be Larry Elison.