Page 4 of 9 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 84

Thread: ZFS On Linux Is Now Set For "Wide Scale Deployment"

  1. #31
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    253

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Seriously now, is there any benefits to using ZFS or btrfs over ext3 or even ext 4 or even XFS as a desktop filesystem?
    No.

    /10chars

  2. #32

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Seriously now, is there any benefits to using ZFS or btrfs over ext3 or even ext 4 or even XFS as a desktop filesystem?

    I highly doubt I will ever use ZFS unless the distro's installer offers it during the partitioning process.
    People using ZFS on desktops usually report that their desktop environments are more responsive, which can be attributed to the ARC algorithm. There are numerous other benefits, but I imagine that most desktop users are only interested in interactive response.

    As for installer support, it is coming.

    Edit: I probably should add that people who use Con Kolivas' BFS to improve interactive response will love ZFS. The primary reason why BFS is effective lies not in providing more CPU time, but avoiding cache flushes associated with changes in workload. ZFS' ARC algorithm is scan resistant, which eliminates the problem entirely. People using ZFS likely will see no benefit from BFS.
    Last edited by ryao; 03-31-2013 at 11:32 AM.

  3. #33
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Posts
    11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Sonadow View Post
    Seriously now, is there any benefits to using ZFS or btrfs over ext3 or even ext 4 or even XFS as a desktop filesystem?
    Among others:

    - Checksums
    - Easy snapshots, clones, rollbacks.
    - Incremental backups with zfs send/receive.
    - Per dataset compression. (now with LZ4)
    - Lots of properties definable on datasets. (quotas, mountpoints, setuid, noexec, etc..)
    - Inheritance of properties.
    - Redundancy of data even on a single disk. (copies = 1,2,3)
    - Boot environments.

  4. #34
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    614

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Linux is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.
    ZFS is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.

    It is just so sad that we can't integrate it mainline due to license incompatibilities.

    License proliferation is harming the free open source software community.
    Nothing is harming each other. There are different licenses and we have to live with this. Keep in mind there are proprietary licenses which are the worst and Open Source must be protected against them. As for the zfs on Linux it's great news.

  5. #35
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    279

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Linux is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.
    ZFS is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.

    It is just so sad that we can't integrate it mainline due to license incompatibilities.
    That was a deliberate decision from SUN when they were losing their market share against Linux system especially IBM and Red Hat.
    As a result, binary ZFS on Linux cannot legally included out of box nor integrated into Linux kernel. When Oracle will decide to change ZFS license for GPL compatibility (unlikely), then it can. For now, ZFS is a legal minefield that out-weights its technical merit.

  6. #36

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by finalzone View Post
    That was a deliberate decision from SUN when they were losing their market share against Linux system especially IBM and Red Hat.
    As a result, binary ZFS on Linux cannot legally included out of box nor integrated into Linux kernel. When Oracle will decide to change ZFS license for GPL compatibility (unlikely), then it can. For now, ZFS is a legal minefield that out-weights its technical merit.
    This is completely wrong.

    1. Sun wanted a license that was like the GPL, but was friendly to binary drivers from third parties.
    2. Oracle is not able to relicense ZFSOnLinux. There are numerous other copyright holders that would also have to agree. Many of them would reject this idea because it would pose problems for code sharing between different implementations.
    3. There are no legal hurdles preventing Linux distributions from shipping binary ZFS modules. I had a meeting about this last year with one of the Gentoo trustees. Our meeting concluded that shipping binary ZFS modules is okay. That is why the Gentoo Foundation is shipping binary ZFS modules on its Live DVD. Other distributions are also beginning to ship ZFS on their install media. The only thing that prevented this from happening sooner was lack of man power. It takes a great deal of effort to integrate a new filesystem into a distribution when you are the first one to do it.
    Last edited by ryao; 03-31-2013 at 02:16 PM.

  7. #37
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    59

    Default

    Have been using ZoL for about a year now for bulk storage and VM backing (cloned ZVOLs are fantastic for this), and whilst there were some configuration-related teething problems when I first started, my patches were accepted, and it's been smooth sailing since. The recent decision for the open implementations (Illumos/FreeBSD/Linux/etc) to do away with version numbers and instead use a feature matrix is a great idea, and should make collaboration much easier, as features will be able to be implemented in parallel.

    The two major features I'm keen to see implemented though are encryption, and libvirt support (for snapshots, volumes, clones, etc), (the former being difficult since it needs to be cross-platform compatible, and the latter being problematic because there seems to be little interest in supporting additional filesystems/volume-managers in libvirt). I may try implementing libvirt support at some stage if it doesn't happen, but it's a big job, since it needs to touch a lot of layers (probably all the way down to QEMU for full support).

  8. #38
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by garegin View Post
    why don't you, for this job, just use freebsd or even better- solaris? solaris has the best/latest support for zfs
    Use FreeBSD or fuking Slowlaris?

    Are you fucking kidding me?

    Might as well ask fucking Microsoft to store your data and smash your pc with a hammer


    BTW, Guess who's back. ME!!!!!
    Last edited by killing BSD; 03-31-2013 at 09:44 PM.

  9. #39
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GreatEmerald View Post
    Nope, not going to use it. Btrfs does everything I need already, so why should I even bother with ZFS? Especially since it's under the CDDL.
    Though, CDDL license is the only license that is worse then the BSD license.

  10. #40
    Join Date
    Mar 2013
    Posts
    8

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by uid313 View Post
    Linux is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.
    ZFS is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.

    It is just so sad that we can't integrate it mainline due to license incompatibilities.

    License proliferation is harming the free open source software community.
    Linux is an awesome piece of marvelous enginnering and is free and open source.
    ZFS is a piece of shit and is not true technology and also, it's proprietary. RETARD

    We don't we ZFS on Linux, Those who say BTRFS is still unstable or whine about it are proprietary sluts. BTRFS will and is now kicking ZFSucks' gay ass to the moon.

    Full Stop.

Posting Permissions

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