Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 26

Thread: ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    15,641

    Default ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

    Phoronix: ZFS For Linux Is Now Available To The Public!

    For those with some extra time this holiday week in the United States, perhaps you want to try out the ZFS file-system on Linux? As was said this week when publishing ZFS benchmarks on Linux using the native kernel module developed by LLNL/KQ Infotech, the public release of this kernel module wasn't going to happen until the first week of January. Fortunately, we have been successful in overwhelming KQ Infotech with lots of interested users, so they have decided to go ahead and make the current beta ZFS Linux module available to the general public...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=ODgyNA

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    450

    Default

    do snapshots an rollbacks work in this like with opensolaris?

    if not i would stick with btrfs, then.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    565

    Default

    The above comment I think is pretty much the general sentiment. There isn't much interest in ZFS if BTRFS is supposed to have all the features and some, and is part of mainline Linux.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Posts
    450

    Talking

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.
    lol ok.

    i thought so too. I prefer how butter is turning out.

    maybe things might change with zfs and "might" someday become a good competitor, but not for the time being. Anyway is good that people are willing to test it.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    30

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by droidhacker View Post
    ZFS is....
    licensed by oracle (aka satan),
    ported by some incredibly rude people (go look back in some of the older threads... the kq douchebags chimed in and made a real ass of themselves).

    All in all, totally unexciting. Btrfs is the way to go. Proper licensing, and worked on by people who aren't such freakishly retarded. There would be a better chance of convincing me to use MurderFS than ZFS.
    You forget that btrfs was, as there wiki puts it: "Initially developed by Oracle".



    Not that I like Oracle very much, but saying that ZFS is bad because its made by Oracle and that btrfs rocks is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.

  7. #7

    Default

    someone ought to reimplement ZFS without using any of the orginal code. then they could put it under any licence they like eg GPL or BSD. that is how linux has access to other file systems.

    is the remote possibility of oracle relicensing the code enough to stop someone sitting down and doing this?

    Any idea how much work this would be? i guess you'd need someone to read through the ZFS source and write up a detailed spec, and then a team of people to implement it (like was done with the broadcom drivers (but easier because of working from source no binary))

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Xanbreon View Post
    You forget that btrfs was, as there wiki puts it: "Initially developed by Oracle".



    Not that I like Oracle very much, but saying that ZFS is bad because its made by Oracle and that btrfs rocks is a bit like the pot calling the kettle black.
    I did NOT say "made by", I referred to the LICENSE!!!
    BIG DIFFERENCE THERE!!!

    BTRFS is in the hands of the community to deal with under proper licensing. ZFS is NOT. ZFS is under SATAN licensing.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    2,145

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ssam View Post
    someone ought to reimplement ZFS without using any of the orginal code. then they could put it under any licence they like eg GPL or BSD. that is how linux has access to other file systems.

    is the remote possibility of oracle relicensing the code enough to stop someone sitting down and doing this?

    Any idea how much work this would be? i guess you'd need someone to read through the ZFS source and write up a detailed spec, and then a team of people to implement it (like was done with the broadcom drivers (but easier because of working from source no binary))
    MUCH MUCH MUCH more work than the touchups that BTRFS needs to be ENTIRELY superior in every possible way.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Posts
    437

    Default

    yeah people who actually use this must have suffered some severe brain trauma. We have BTRFS constantly improving with all good stuff you guys mentioned above, why should we choose the ZFS come with poisonous license owned by a poisonous corporation?

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •