Reply With QuoteWelcome to the next generation, where Linux won't have anything like ZFS for another decade...
Phoronix News Bot
Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System
Phoronix: Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System
A hash-based denial-of-service attack vulnerability has been discovered for the Btrfs, the next-generation Linux file-system...
http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTI1MjU
Senior Member
Welcome to the next generation, where Linux won't have anything like ZFS for another decade...
Senior Member
Completely natural reaction as beta software becomes more available and first adapters discover first real-life bugs.
This was same with Linux.
You make BSD look like trash can. Is it your original goal? Congratulate you on achievement?Originally Posted by Cthulhux
First - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.
Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters.
Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
Five - ZFS also had bugs. Its software.
Six - ZFS also has limitations.
Seven - ZFS developers very very rarely accept patches to improve its "desktop" usage. See (3).
The only fact is that ZFS is purposely not compatible to GPL.
Should ZFS have used GPL license, you would post "Welcome to next generation, where filesystems choose stupid license as usual" instead.
Your trolling is weak, predictable and self-damaging.
Last edited by crazycheese; 12-14-2012 at 06:54 PM.
Senior Member
A trash can with ZFS, at least.
Superior in others.
... FUSE-based, thus (technically) entirely different.
Naming facts - no kernel-side ZFS on Linux - is trolling? Ah.
Senior Member
Actually there's a ZFS on Linux project that is quite active. It was discussed quite a bit at ZFS Day too.
Senior Member
Oh. Hm. Discard my previous comments.
Phoronix Member
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS#ComparisonsFirst - ZFS is Solaris exclusive and only ported to BSD.
¿Was that hard to even take a look at Wikipedia? Some other OS that have the porting underway are missing from there.
Please, back up your claims and dont make empty statements that revolves around "something" that isn't well stated and elaborated.Second - ZFS inferior to BTRFS in many operations.
Third - ZFS is different and for different scale, many complexities are excessive for different systems. ZFS is meant for datacenters.
Four - Linux has ZFS port, just as BSD.
Five - ZFS also had bugs. Its software.
Six - ZFS also has limitations.
Seven - ZFS developers very very rarely accept patches to improve its "desktop" usage. See (3).
Thank you.
The FUSE port is not the only one ... http://zfsonlinux.org/... FUSE-based, thus (technically) entirely different.
But if your ask me ... I wouldn't trust that piece of software yet.
Phoronix Member
BTFRS and Desktop
I don't see any problem with desktop use. I actually like btfrs for what it provides me. My desktop does not run a server so, the exercise to create a DOS by hash collides is not something I will ever meet.
Senior Member
Good point, lsatenstein. Here's what you miss:
http://rudd-o.com/linux-and-free-sof...ter-than-btrfs
Junior Member
Seriously? this is neither a 'denial of service attack' nor a 'vulnerability' -
A 'denial of service attack' allows a remote (non-local) user to prevent a computer from operating normally.
This is like saying that since users can fill up disk drives, that the filesystems have 'a vulnerability' -
Since there is no security risk, there is no 'vulnerability'
This is just a *bug* in software that is basically in beta state, which is to be expected.
But much easier to spin it as a security issue on the security lists and get some free press,
all the while making yourself into a 'security expert' for finding this 'security issue'
Posting Permissions