Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Benchmarks Of The Official KQ ZFS Linux Module

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Under the bridge
    Posts
    2,153

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by smitty3268 View Post
    Yes, that's already been explained to kebabbert several times. He keeps spamming the same links over and over again, though.
    He's probably set up google alerts for 'btrfs' and 'zfs' and posts spam each and every appearance of these words.

    It doesn't help that his posts are pure FUD at best.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6

    Default GPL violation?

    How can KQ Infotech be authorized to distribute binaries of the code? The binaries are surely derived in part from GPLed code (the kernel) and thus have the GPL apply to the whole work (including the ZFS code) OR distribution is not authorized.

    This is precisely why distros cannot incorporate the ZFS code.

    As far as I understand it, what might well be authorized is the distribution of the ZFS port's source code so that individual users could build a binary for their own system. But those users cannot distribute the resulting binary either.

    Perhaps the GPL doesn't work in India. But I doubt it: their law is most likely like our law (Canada), both being descended from British law and the Berne Convention.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Third Rock from the Sun
    Posts
    6,587

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
    How can KQ Infotech be authorized to distribute binaries of the code? The binaries are surely derived in part from GPLed code (the kernel) and thus have the GPL apply to the whole work (including the ZFS code) OR distribution is not authorized.

    This is precisely why distros cannot incorporate the ZFS code.

    As far as I understand it, what might well be authorized is the distribution of the ZFS port's source code so that individual users could build a binary for their own system. But those users cannot distribute the resulting binary either.

    Perhaps the GPL doesn't work in India. But I doubt it: their law is most likely like our law (Canada), both being descended from British law and the Berne Convention.
    I'm not sure how you see it as a violation of the GPL. The source is available. The GPL does not prevent the supplying of binaries as well. If this was the case then pretty much everything that utilized linux (including binary delivered distributions) would be in violation themselves.

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Toronto, Canada
    Posts
    6

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I'm not sure how you see it as a violation of the GPL. The source is available. The GPL does not prevent the supplying of binaries as well. If this was the case then pretty much everything that utilized linux (including binary delivered distributions) would be in violation themselves.
    If it were as simple as that, don't you think that Linux distros would include ZFS?

    Read the GPLv2.

    Section 0 clearly says that the GPL covers "the program".

    0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

    Since the binary distribution surely includes GPLed code along with the ZFS code, the rules of the GPL now must (and yet cannot) cover the ZFS code. Note: the "distribution" part is key. Doing this at home, for yourself is not a problem.

    Here's one part that is hard to conform to: section 2b:

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
    Sun carefully ensured that their license cannot be combined with this one.

  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default RAID

    Please, test the ZFS Linux port in different software RAID versions (RAID1,RAID1+0 and especially RAID-Z vs RAID5. ZFS should shine in multidisk configurations.
    Take a look at this article to see what is really capable ZFS --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3963/z...d-benchmarking

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    714

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by deanjo View Post
    I'm not sure how you see it as a violation of the GPL. The source is available. The GPL does not prevent the supplying of binaries as well.
    It can. It depends on the binaries.

    If this was the case then pretty much everything that utilized linux (including binary delivered distributions) would be in violation themselves.
    The #1 most important thing to remember about the GPL is that it is a copyright license. The scope of the copyright license is restricted by copyright law.

    There is a very important term in copyright law called 'derivative work'. It's a legal term that is designed to define what happens when you create a new work by taking a old work and adding to it. It's defined by the law and case precedent, not licenses like the GPL.

    The GPL basically says that if you distribute derivative work under the GPL license then you are required to make the source code available under the terms of the GPL.

    Take, for example, the Nvidia kernel drivers. The Nvidia drivers were not original written for Linux. They are more then likely Windows driver code with some compatibility added to make it work with Linux. So therefore they are probably not derivative work and thus are not covered by the GPL. No matter how much the Linux developers or GNU or whoever does not like it they are not the ultimate authority here.

    But if you compile the drivers then that act causes portions of Linux code to be sucked into the actual resulting binaries. If that is true then binaries can violate the license.

    The #2 most important thing to remember is that law is NOT software. That is it's not like code that you write and then that is what sets up the rules. You can read all the case law and understand the license and read USA copyright code... but that is not enough. You cannot take the law literally. It must be interpreted.

    That is one Judge may say that Nvidia binaries are derivative and violate the GPL... and another Judge may say that it does not. And BOTH can be right and their decisions can both be 100% legal and correct.

    This is how the law works.


    The #3 important thing with the GPL is that it places no restrictions on usage. ONLY distribution. You can combine GPL'd code with all the closed source code you want and use it and it all is 100% legal.. because the license allows this. You have no requirements for sharing code or anything like that. The restrictions only kick in when you want to distribute the software.


    So in this specific case the ZFS driver code is a derivative of the Solaris kernel code and is licensed under the CDDL. Just because you make it compatible with Linux does not make it derivative of Linux. You actually have to use Linux code to make it derivative. If they don't do that then it's 100% legal to distribute.

    Once you compile it then it'll suck in portions of the Linux kernel code and that is when you _CAN_ run into problems.

    It is absolutely true that some binary drivers can violate copyright, but others may not. It depends on the details.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    69

    Default

    Wow, I am really surprised be good performance. Would need to check performance on my 32bit multidisk Debian box. But it looks would be much better than current zfs-fuse (which isn't so bad, but had some problems).

    Anybody knows if NFS exports will work on this zfs?

  8. #18
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Location
    Sweden
    Posts
    174

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Hugh View Post
    How can KQ Infotech be authorized to distribute binaries of the code? The binaries are surely derived in part from GPLed code (the kernel) and thus have the GPL apply to the whole work (including the ZFS code) OR distribution is not authorized.

    This is precisely why distros cannot incorporate the ZFS code.

    As far as I understand it, what might well be authorized is the distribution of the ZFS port's source code so that individual users could build a binary for their own system. But those users cannot distribute the resulting binary either.

    Perhaps the GPL doesn't work in India. But I doubt it: their law is most likely like our law (Canada), both being descended from British law and the Berne Convention.
    There is a provision to the linux licence specifying what kernel modules are allowed not to be redistributed under the GPL. Some linux symbols are exported as GPL-only. To use them in a module, the module has to be GPL. Some symbols are allowed to be used by non-gpl modules, similar to the way kernel API is used.
    Maybe KQ Infotech are not using the GPL symbols and thus doing what the binary blob developers do.
    Is it possible to implement a file system without using the GPL symbols?

  9. #19
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    1

    Default 4k sectors WD EARS and LLNL zfs on linux

    I would really like to see this benchmark on some 4k sector drives such as the WD EARS. I tried it on my system and the zpool automatically detects 512 byte sectors which are emulated by the drives which results in terrible performance.

    Is there a way to force 4k sectors in linux, similar to the BSD gnop device? This would only be needed at the zpool creation time.

  10. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Posts
    146

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Proximo View Post
    Please, test the ZFS Linux port in different software RAID versions (RAID1,RAID1+0 and especially RAID-Z vs RAID5. ZFS should shine in multidisk configurations.
    Take a look at this article to see what is really capable ZFS --> http://www.anandtech.com/show/3963/z...d-benchmarking
    I second this. Actually, I really just want to know if Raid-Z is supported in this release.

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
  •