Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

[k1e0x]

Perhaps, but likely you don't either. Why? Well, why is Reiser 4/5 not going to be in the kernel?

Right or wrong, for whatever reason, the kernel (folks) don't like incorporating filesystems without a big corporate sponsor. The big corporate sponsor of ZFS (flavor be damned) is S'nOracle.

Oracle has nothing to do with OpenZFS and haven't for 10 years. (or even ever because 10 years ago it was Sun and all the Sun employees walked out.)

Oracle ZFS is a fork.. and the pools won't even import across OracleZFS and OpenZFS. They are different filesystems now.

Oracle even has no port of OracleZFS for Linux only Solaris 11+ No work has been done on that and they can't take the port from ZoL because they don't have copyright on it and would have to release *their* changes to OracleZFS under the CDDL.. something they won't do.

Commercial backers for OpenZFS are DDN, Joyent and Datto (and others) - Probably a larger amount of paid engineers are working on OpenZFS than OracleZFS as Solaris is kind of in maintenance mode at Oracle and has been for a long time.

[k1e0x]

False. The very nature of being out of tree means that there will be breakage and that no updates or improvements come for free; out of tree kernel code is always trailing behind technically and the out of tree maintainers have a significantly higher burden to maintain compatibility and reliability. No one is saying you can't use it, you are probably using Ubuntu, so it is in some limited sense "supported", as you claim, but only by Canonical; from the point of view of the Linux kernel, it is quite plainly unsupported 3rd party software.

What are you even talking about? Do you actually believe this?

ZFS is heavily developed. https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/pulse/monthly It is mission critical for DDN, Datto, Joyent, Delphix, LLNL, FreeBSD and iX who all have enterprise products based on it. These companies host customer data in the hundreds of petabytes on ZFS.

Where is the btrfs enterprise product? hmm? .. good thing it's "in tree and well supported"

ZFS doesn't compete against btrfs because nobody uses it in enterprise. It competes against NetApp and WAFL.

Keep drinking that Linux coolaid man..

[ktraglin]

The spirit of the GPL and CDDL are the same. The license do the same thing.

Yet Oracle sued Google regarding Java. Oracle alleged infringement of 37 separate Java APIs. Couldn't you just modify the code yourself (and risk putting food in the table for your own kids)?

[k1e0x]

I'd say exfat + gocryptfs or securefs. That way you can also easily backup, sync or move the encrypted data (the underlying files) to different media using your standard tools. Both are available for Linux, macOS (brew install gocryptfs/securefs) and Windows (use cppcryptfs for gocryptfs).

I like my data too much to put it on fat. I have plenty of old files corrupted by fat. (I'm sure you do too)

I can already easily snapshot, backup, sync and move the encrypted data on ZFS and it's supported on all the OS's I use and the commands are the same on all OS's. It's done at block level too.. not file level.

[F.Ultra]

Why are you pretending that the spirit of the law means contracts and licenses can mean something entirely different than what is written? If that was the case, it would've been much less important to read the fine print.

I don't know why CDDL would be incompatible with GPL, but the reverse is true, at least in the sense that you can't necessarily put GPL code into a CDDL project because it might consist of proprietary software. But I don't know why CDDL software couldn't be mixed with GPL, which is the case here. License compatibility doesn't have to be a two way street and even if licenses are incompatible in and of themselves, that doesn't necessarily mean that the software is only compatible with one of the licenses.

One of the reasons that CDDL is incompatible with GPLv2 is that CDDL requires (section 3.1) that the source code must be distributed under the CDDL (remember that CDDL covers files and not works) while section 2 of GPLv2 states that the work is "to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License".

So BSD or MIT is not a problem since they allow the source code to be relicensed so when a BSD or MIT source is included in the kernel they are relicensed to GPLv2 and so the whole of the Linux kernel source code is released as GPLv2 which you cannot do if you include a file licensed under CDDL without violating both licenses.

[Cape]

ext2 FTW

I'd like to benchmark it on a modern SSD! Sure it's going to be faster than failing ZFS & C. 🤗

[wikinevick]

By now, so much of OpenZFS is written by independent contributors that not even Oracle can relicense it into something different. CDDL is not different from MPL,, and actually really a nice license, the thing is if the FSF and other interested parties lets it pass through, they have no way to control the code or the community.

[finalzone]

By now, so much of OpenZFS is written by independent contributors that not even Oracle can relicense it into something different. CDDL is not different from MPL,, and actually really a nice license, the thing is if the FSF and other interested parties lets it pass through, they have no way to control the code or the community.

Please read this post to understand CDDL was intentionally based from MPL 1.1. known for its incompatibility to GPL in addition of removing some lines to prevent porting tools to Linux kernel. The main topic is about Linus refusing to support codes from openZFS community inside the kernel space as long Oracle lawyers and CEO will not clarify the legal issue related ZFS. Until then, openZFS community are on their own fixing when Linux kernel broke their codes in user space .

[jaypatelani]

Why not use HammerFS?

[skeevy420]

I've never seen the point of ZFS when we have Btrfs...

long term reliability