Security Problem Discovered In Btrfs File-System

[crazycheese]

Then make up your mind with this statement:

Note: I added the bold/underline

ZFS was conceived in Solaris (d'oh !), but not exclusive of this platform ... even if you "only ported to BSD" is still wrong, you say the opposite you said before with the "exclusive".

I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE

I didn't do anything - read my response to first post please.
The whole "battle" with you rised due to "is/was" and I spelled it wrong - ZFS was developed on Solaris (was exclusive).
Everywhere I said "ZFS is Solaris exclusive" I referred to its legacy, NOT that one can use ZFS only on Solaris(!).
Again check my first post as response to first comment.

Not counting the different *BSD systems.
I prefer to talk about the community and free ZFS, not the Oracle's one ... ty very much

So community ZFS differs from "official"? Forked? Which license? How about Oracle patents on ZFS?

First of all, citing a benchmark from Michael Larabel is something I always "take with tweezers"
Michael is well known for his "well" and badly done benchmarks mostly because he had no formation on what he was benchmarking ... I remember a really horribly made benchmark (in fact, if my memory doesn't fail in one of the "benchmarks" he didn't use the same hardware) that ended up in a flame war in the mailing lists and this wiki page was born from that: http://wiki.freebsd.org/BenchmarkAdvice

That article FROM 2010 lacks information about OS, configuration, specific filesystem configurations and some extra information to actually extract something meaninful from these numbers ... sorry, can't take that seriously, but those are cute colored graphs nonetheless
When it comes to linux graphical stack benchs, some people here also remembers horribly done benchmarks ...

One should definately rebench XFS, EXT4, BTRFS and ZFS (under proper configuration).
I have nothing against.
I am not ZFS user, so I can't help, except on my own. Can do this if everyone denies, because I too have a bit interest.

?Abysmal performance? Please, explain me that point because I recognize that the lack of block pointer rewrite is a hit on the performance (that's being worked out) on low space situations ... but tools like external ZIL or cache devices makes a worlds of difference in performance when you have multiple devices (SSDs included) in your hands.

btrfs doesn't have anything like this (even if we ignore that we are talking about an unstable filesystem) ... if I'm mistaken, please provide me proper information.

I use ZFS on my desktop, and I can assure you that my computer is not a datacenter ... some people use it even in lower end hardware and more constrained situation with no issues.
Of course, you won't exploit the full potential of ZFS without proper gear; but that's another story that also applies to other filesystems

WE need fair benchmarking on common desktop hardware.

Yes and no ... It's a port, correct.
But platorm is properly abstracted and the "core" of the filesystem is VERY portable that's why the feature flags were introduced in the first place.

Nice!
But remember, "port" or not, my sentence had different meaning! We drift too much in meaningless direction.
I don't care if its port or not, seriously. I am against stupidity as in 1st post in this thread - regardless of OS.

Agreed.
But we are talking about whole worlds of differences between btrfs and ZFS when it comes to testing.

Yes.

That's something from the Sun era ... the development of ZFS changed a lot since that time.
Have something more recent?

Licensing discussions, don't really like them ... short story is YES, you're right.

Thats the only point that disturbs me on ZFS.
I know that both are opensource and I don't care about licenses, because I am not developing them.
My problem is that ZFS license caused integration type like installing proprietary Nvidia driver. :/

Regards

Regards..

[ryao]

How much hundred terrabytes your cluster has? Or you use it due to bit-rot protection? Whats the reason you prefer slower FS, compared to EXT4 and BTRFS with LZO?

Both of those filesystems are slower than ZFS. The main reasons for that are the ARC page replacement algorithm and write sequentialization.

So you are ZFS port developer and this is your point to have ZFS on Linux? What is your view on ZFS license? Why don't you develop BTFS instead?

The CDDL has facilitated inter-operating system development in ways that are unprecedented for the GPL. It is one of the reasons that ZFS development is doing so well.

With regard to btrfs, you could say the same about <insert filesystem here>. With that said, btrfs is perhaps the most over-hyped filesystem software in the Linux community. btrfs suffers from unbound internal fragmentation, which I consider to be a fatal design flaw. ZFS does what we need, lacks the flaws inherent to btrfs' design and is available on numerous platforms. The only reasons that I can see to develop btrfs are hype, NIH syndrome and attempts to lock people into Linux. None of those things interest me.

The only way to prove "faster" claim is to do PTS tests.

The Phoronix Test Suite tests suffer from stratification bias by measuring workloads that represent a small fraction of real-world usage. Even when they appear to be measuring something that might be useful, I cannot rule out the possibility that I missed a mistake that Michael made given all of the mistakes that I catch in his other benchmarks. I would not rely on them.

BTRFS is free to port away, just as ZFS, and it does not have stupid CDDL license. This makes it more universal.

The CDDL license is more friendly to non-GPL operating systems than the GPL license is.

[crazycheese]

Both of those filesystems are slower than ZFS. The main reasons for that are the ARC page replacement algorithm and write sequentialization.

The Phoronix Test Suite suffer from stratification bias by measuring workloads that represent a small fraction of real-world usage. Even when they appear to be measuring something that might be useful, I cannot rule out the possibility that I missed a mistake that Michael made given all of the mistakes that I catch in his other benchmarks.

Got numbers?

The CDDL has facilitated inter-operating system development in ways that are unprecedented for the GPL. It is one of the reasons that ZFS development is doing so well.

The CDDL license is more friendly to non-GPL operating systems than the GPL license is.

Yes, GPL protects open software and is not happy when its consumed by/into proprietary. Full stop.
Here comes CDDL, claims its the good license, sabotages GPL and guys like you malform it into GPL causes problems form.
Don't do crap. Will be no problems. Pretty easy.

The development of proprietary systems/applications or their achievements does not interest me.

With regard to btrfs, you could say the same about <insert filesystem here>. With that said, btrfs is perhaps the most over-hyped filesystem software in the Linux community. btrfs suffers from unbound internal fragmentation, which I consider to be a fatal design flaw. ZFS does what we need, lacks the flaws inherent to btrfs' design and it is available on numerous platforms. The only reasons that I can see to develop btrfs are hype, NIH syndrome and attempts to lock people into Linux. None of those things interest me.

Its not hype, its working. It has online defrag and internal fragmentation was just a bug, not a flaw. Numbers here say different things. It also does not bring bullshit license with it. Bonuses all around.
Also, if this is taken into account, Sun and ZFS can kiss my rear pipe - so much "interest" I have in them, and "available numerous platforms" as well.
If you can't use GPL, consider exchanging Gentoo with something more "numerous", "unprecendented" and "closed" - love/hate won't do you good.

[lsatenstein]

a comparison matrix between btfrs and zfs

Has Phronix produced the titled comparison matrix.

It would be nice to know about performance and more than performance, such as system administration management , and any other evaluations.

[Cthulhux]

There is no need to sabotage the restrictive GPL even more. It does well by itself.

[crazycheese]

There is no need to sabotage the restrictive GPL even more. It does well by itself.

Nope, only with external help, and its still unaffected. Guess, ability to troll from your server minority OS makes you feel better. That damn Linux and GPL, due to them BSD never made it to desktop and got BSDM'ed through Apple. All by itself. Ow, wait..

[ryao]

Got numbers?

Figuring put how to produce meaningful benchmark numbers is something of an art. ZFS collects statistics on cache hits and misses, which would be a good place to start. I often see a >97% cache hit rate with ZFS, which is probably the most important metric in desktop workloads. At the moment, I lack a readily accessible method of getting similar statistics for other filesystems. If you are interested in that, I suggest that you implement it.

Yes, GPL protects open software and is not happy when its consumed by/into proprietary. Full stop.
Here comes CDDL, claims its the good license, sabotages GPL and guys like you malform it into GPL causes problems form.
Don't do crap. Will be no problems. Pretty easy.

The development of proprietary systems/applications or their achievements does not interest me.


Its not hype, its working. It has online defrag and internal fragmentation was just a bug, not a flaw. Numbers here say different things. It also does not bring bullshit license with it. Bonuses all around.
Also, if this is taken into account, Sun and ZFS can kiss my rear pipe - so much "interest" I have in them, and "available numerous platforms" as well.
If you can't use GPL, consider exchanging Gentoo with something more "numerous", "unprecendented" and "closed" - love/hate won't do you good.

The GPL can be just as proprietary and closed in the case of TiVo, Facebook and others (e.g. secure boot). Being open is not one of its merits and quite frankly, I neither believe claims that it can accomplish that nor do I think that its attempts to toward that are a good thing. If someone is going to have a closed platform, then it would be best if the software is well written. If I or a loved one were in a hospital for instance, I would want the medical monitors to be use reliable software. The same goes for flight traffic control systems and other vital infrastructure. I definitely would not want to prioritize some kind of pointless crusade so that I could tell people about how good I am over having reliable infrastructure. I doubt you would either. You could always say that if people did things X way, that would not be a problem. The problem with that is that we would not have any concept of software licensing if people did things X way. Hence, why such discussions are pointless.

[Cthulhux]

Nope, only with external help, and its still unaffected.

It is not.

Guess, ability to troll from your server minority OS makes you feel better.

So, minority OS is a con for you? You use the OS with the largest market share then?