Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Absolutely ! Don't use ZFS in Linux. Use it with Solaris !

    Comment


    • Originally posted by muncrief View Post
      I simply want to format my individual disks, use mergerfs to pool them in a flexible and simple manner, and detect bit rot and restore files from backups when it occurs.

      It's really quite simple, but you can't do it with Linux. And as I've said a few times now, it really is a shame.
      With one copy of the data changes can be detected but cannot be corrected without a 2nd good copy. Same goes for BTRFS or any other fs with checksuming.


      Comment


      • Originally posted by wikinevick View Post

        BS, the GPL incompatibililty is a mis-interpretation from 1 ex-SUN lawyer. Ask Brian Cantrill or the people involved in OpenZFS, and they have no issues with OpenZFS being used in linux. Oh .. and Canonical has lawyers too.
        It does not matter whether or not the people involved with OpenZFS have any issues or not with ZFS being included in Linux. The licenses are still not compatible. Section 3.1 in CDDL is in direct conflict with section 2 of GPLv2.

        Without relicensing ZFS you can only include ZFS in the Linux kernel by actively ignoring the license which can have unintended consequences.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by muncrief View Post

          But then you lose half the capacity of the drive. As I said in my OP, I simply want a filesystem that can detect bit rot. I don't want to waste disk space duplicating data, because that's what my cloud backups are for. And I don't want to have to do any other ridiculous things like having identical disks, rebuilding everything when I want to add/delete storage, etc.

          I simply want to format my individual disks, use mergerfs to pool them in a flexible and simple manner, and detect bit rot and restore files from backups when it occurs.

          It's really quite simple, but you can't do it with Linux. And as I've said a few times now, it really is a shame.
          You can actually do this by making your individual disks zpools with one zvol that takes up all the available space. The zvol is presented as a block device, so presumably you should be able to use mergerfs on top of it, and you will get checksumming and data corruption detection from the zvol layer. This might be a bit overly convoluted though.

          As another alternative, there is http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8...tysetup.8.html which is integrated into the kernel though I've not used it.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by finalzone View Post

            As highlighted on comment #52, Brian Cantrill was not at the room when the decision to make CDDL intentionally incompatible to GPL was one of the main reasons to prevent porting the codes to Linux kernel space. Only Oracle know what OpenZFS could infringe because they own ZFS and wait for the opportunity to strike as the lawsuit against Google related to Java showed. Should you carefully ready the post, the legal issue is related to kernel space from which Linus refuses to support OpenZFS codes.

            Canonical can only use OpenZFS on user space (possibly advised by their lawyers) and they are on their own fixing the problem when an update from kernel space breaks those codes which were never supported.
            Regarding the intentions of Sun when they chose that license, there is ONE person who claims they wanted to be incompatible, and multiple other persons who deny that. This is at best controversial, and even those who claim it was one of the reasons don't claim it was the main one.

            Your "wait for the opportunity to strike" is completely bogus. Oracle filed the lawsuit in 2010, the same year that they acquired Sun. They didn't wait very long at all after they had the legal ability to sue.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by nivedita View Post

              You can actually do this by making your individual disks zpools with one zvol that takes up all the available space. The zvol is presented as a block device, so presumably you should be able to use mergerfs on top of it, and you will get checksumming and data corruption detection from the zvol layer. This might be a bit overly convoluted though.

              As another alternative, there is http://man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8...tysetup.8.html which is integrated into the kernel though I've not used it.
              Yes, I've trying making single disk zpools a few times but for some reason it never worked as I had data corruption issues just with a single disk. I'm sure I was doing something wrong, but gave up after a day or two each time. I remember one of the problems was inconsistent and conflicting information about ZFS, it was almost as bad as the Fedora desktop installation documentation mess, but not quite that bad

              But I've never heard of the integritysetup stuff before, thank you for the link. It looks even more complicated than ZFS, but it will still be an interesting thing to investigate.

              Comment


              • Originally posted by nivedita View Post
                Regarding the intentions of Sun when they chose that license, there is ONE person who claims they wanted to be incompatible, and multiple other persons who deny that. This is at best controversial, and even those who claim it was one of the reasons don't claim it was the main one.
                https://web.archive.org/web/20060816...PL_redline.pdf
                the problem in 3.1 of CDDL is.
                be distributed only under the terms of this License.

                This is straight from MPL 1.1 and is in CDDL 1.0 as is. This means CDDL cannot be over-licensed with any license just like MPL 1.1 does not have to be GPL. Lets say at some point Oracle released a CDDL 1.1 you could not over-license CDDL 1.0 with CDDL 1.1 no matter how you worded CDDL 1.1. Yet MPL 1.1 could be over-license by newer version of license because it contained
                or a future version of this License released under Section 6.1

                This was removed from CDDL. So the issue CDDL is not simple to fix. The fix to CDDL is throw the complete code base away and rewrite from scratch. Everything tainted by CDDL is not fixable legally.

                That distributed only under terms of this License blocks the normal thing under copyright where you can licence your own work under as many licenses as you like. Yes even if you ask every developer in a CDDL work for permission to re-license and they said yes the CDDL license still directly forbids this. CDDL is many levels worse than GPL in this regard you can re-license a GPL work if you can get all the developers to agree. This is most likely why Oracle legal department does not answer on re-license or allow into Linux kernel because you most likely cannot ever legally. Yes CDDL is a viral license on a complete different level once you put something under CDDL its under CDDL forever and nothing else.

                But this is not the only problem.
                http://www.tomhull.com/ocston/docs/mozgpl.html

                There is a proper write up on MPL 1.1 and where it is incompatible with GPL. So its not one person claiming that CDDL is incompatible with GPL. There are many proper write ups on MPL 1.1 and if you look at the pdf above you will notice most those conflicting GPL clauses are in CDDL. So there are multi parties that say CDDL is incompatible by stating its parent MPL 1.1 is incompatible.

                Those that attempt to claim that CDDL is compatible to be included in a GPL project is wrong. CDDL starts with MPL 1.1 that is GPL 2.0(linux kernel main license) incompatible without question with.

                Yes its a error to say that only 1 person had a issue with CDDL. The pdf record that shows that CDDL is MPL 1.1 labelled and modified is sitting in the web archive. There is no need to-do a special assessment on CDDL to see if it GPL incompatible when MPL 1.1 is incompatible with GPL and those sections of text are still in CDDL as the PDF shows.

                There are a few hundred different write ups out there by different companies legal teams saying that MPL 1.1 is GPL incompadible. CDDL need to be just considered as a MPL 1.1 broken version as legally it worse than MPL 1.1 for compatibility with other licenses. Yet for some reason those back CDDL attempt to argue its the best license since sliced bread.

                Originally posted by nivedita View Post
                Your "wait for the opportunity to strike" is completely bogus. Oracle filed the lawsuit in 2010, the same year that they acquired Sun. They didn't wait very long at all after they had the legal ability to sue.
                Oracle going after those with the most money to pay first is normal business. Google/Oracle case final ruling would effect any future ZFS case. There is no real point running two cases at the same time legally.

                Sueing Google when they did was really required considering that Google developers were talking about altering android api/abi over time that could have removed the parts Oracle could sue over for money.. So 2010 law suite had to happen quickly.

                There is no real effort to recode ZFS from scratch using independent license. The google/Oracle case is in fact about preventing you from being able todo this. So the Oracle/Google case if the ruling goes one way basically walls those in working on ZFS stuff to be absolutely pounded by Oracle.

                ZFS has some good features but its license is absolute horrible.

                Comment


                • Darn I am foolish. There is a horrible question.

                  https://web.archive.org/web/20060816...PL_redline.pdf

                  This file opens up a horrible question about CDDL that really does need an answer.

                  Is CDDL even legal?

                  MPL 1.1 license strictly says what is under MPL 1.1 is only to be under MPL license or latter MPL. If that covers the MPL 1.1 license text it self CDDL license is in it self copyright infrignment.

                  Settling the CDDL copyright infrignment might the be way out of CDDL hell. Like if the courts ruled that all CDDL came MPL 1.1 the means to use MPL 2.0 would allow ZFS for Linux into mainline kernel.

                  Of course it could go complete to hell where its simply illegal to keep on using CDDL and you have to re-license this would kill CDDL block to re-licensing and open up a path to fix the problem as well.

                  So there really need to be a court case over the CDDL license to rule if it even legal or not.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by F.Ultra View Post

                    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.
                    That doesn't explain anything to me. Are you trying to say that Linux doesn't provide the source code free of charge? Otherwise, why mention it as some kind of evidence that Linux is incompatible with CDDL?

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
                      The other thing is nobody has solved my use case.

                      I use macOS, FreeBSD and Linux.
                      I use removable drives from time to time to store data. (long term cold storage)
                      I'd like to access that disk from any of the OS's I use.
                      Those drives need to be encrypted.

                      What file system would you recommend for me? I use ZFS currently for this.

                      The best answer I got is.. "Lol just use Linux nub" .. real great.. thanks.
                      Sorry but nobody gives a shit about FreeBSD, it's used by 5 People around the world, and don't come now with some Playstation or other devices that might use it, because there you will never use ZFS. So nobody gives a shit to be compatible with them, if that OS would be so great nobody would care to bring ZFS to Linux in the first place because they just would use that System and move on. But people can forgo ZFS but they can't forgo Linux.

                      So now let's Talk about Apple and to be complete also about MS, both don't offer YOU any solution to even have something between windows and Apple that fullfills your wishes. So if they don't give a shit about your problem why does the Linux community have to care about apple or windows support?

                      So the only shiny feature FreeBSD has over other OSes especially Linux is native ZFS support so if you ask for a alternative to ZFS there is literally no reason to use this OS period. So then let's talk apple + linux support, Veracrypt seems to be the most suggested solution. you have then a encrypted file on your device that get's mounted as FS, the Filesystem below would probably easiest to use HFS+ because both Oses support that.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X