Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

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

  • #41
    Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
    The spirit of the GPL and CDDL are the same
    wake me when you have written agreement from oracle lawyers

    Comment


    • #42
      Originally posted by polarathene View Post

      Yeaaahh.. belief is a nice thing and for you as an individual, go nuts. But when it's no longer a personal decision, but one which can raise a brow, belief isn't going to protect you from legal action. Canonical takes the risk and can afford to with their belief that it's safe to do.



      Right... so not officially supported and various reliability across OS. Sounds like same issue other third-party filesystem support has. Regarding Windows, blue screening is one thing if you just use ZFS on Windows, but like the BTRFS driver for Windows, I'd be even more cautious about sharing the same volume with another OS using ZFS.

      That's good though, hope it continues to improve. Generally though, if I can't hand an external over to a friend for them to use it on their system without having to install a third-party filesystem driver, it's rarely going to matter to me personally.

      I'd really like to see that space improve, even for when just dealing with Linux, it'd be nice to have a portable filesystem that isn't strict with user/group/octal permissions but still has all the other perks linux filesystems have that exFAT/NTFS don't. For now, I guess there is NFS/Samba to share data over a network instead of USB to my local systems while using my preferred filesystems.
      ZFS can do all of that. You can mask the permissions and file naming case if you want. It also checksums your data on that removable disk and ensures whatever you put on it is the same thing that comes off it.. not bad for unreliable media. Oh it can encrypt too.. in case you lose it. And that encryption is compatible across all OS's.
      Last edited by k1e0x; 01-09-2020, 09:18 PM.

      Comment


      • #43
        Originally posted by pal666 View Post
        that's self-inficted pain. use linux only and stop crying

        you don't need any modern filesystem for this usecase. even vfat on full disk encryption will work. only idiot will use zfs for this, zfs has no data safety on single disk (unlike btrfs). and btw any os can access linux fs reexported by samba from linux vm
        Though so..

        "You're doing it wrong!" Sure buddy... You could just say.. "Yeah.. that probably solves your problem in a very clean and concise way." .. but no.. lol

        Comment


        • #44
          Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

          I believe the CDDL and GPL are compatible so I have no issues mixing them. (others believe this too.)
          As long those users keep them internal and avoid mixing both licenses in a business production environment. Let remind former SUN engineers themselves clearly quoted CDDL was deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL. That was posted at the time for that license creation where Linux powered operating systems took away share from SUN. Knowing the legal history of Oracle who owns the ZFS rights and is also a Linux kernel contributor, Linus Torvalds will not take a risk and rightfully told those ZFS they are on their own to fix problems.
          Should a commercial entity attempt using ZFS in production environment mixed with Linux kernel, they better get lawyers and more finances for potential lawsuits.

          Comment


          • #45
            Originally posted by pal666 View Post
            wake me when you have written agreement from oracle lawyers
            The fact the most sue heavy corporation in the world hasn't sued any of the companies using OpenZFS is good enough for me. (Such as DDN, what are they the 3'rd or 4'th largest storage provider?)

            Comment


            • #46
              Originally posted by polarathene View Post
              ....
              You can get that with HDD and filesystems like BTRFS(and I assume ZFS) no? On an SSD it doesn't matter, or needs to be handled specially since having extra copies(of metadata blocks I think to detect bitrot), as SSDs can de-dupe internally such that if that data goes bad, then both "copies" will also be bad and thus bitrot would not be detected. Can't recall if it was detection or repair. Something like that.
              Btrfs and Zfs are unstable and Zfs is unsupported as well. That's the problem. In order to detect bit rot with Linux you have to take enormous risks with the data itself because of unstable and unsupported file systems. That's why I said it was a shame.

              Comment


              • #47
                Originally posted by finalzone View Post
                As long those users keep them internal and avoid mixing both licenses in a business production environment. Let remind former SUN engineers themselves clearly quoted CDDL was deliberately designed to be incompatible with GPL. That was posted at the time for that license creation where Linux powered operating systems took away share from SUN. Knowing the legal history of Oracle who owns the ZFS rights and is also a Linux kernel contributor, Linus Torvalds will not take a risk and rightfully told those ZFS they are on their own to fix problems.
                Should a commercial entity attempt using ZFS in production environment mixed with Linux kernel, they better get lawyers and more finances for potential lawsuits.
                Source?

                Here is the creator of DTrace saying that isn't true. (DTrace uses the same License) He explains why they didn't use the GPL also.
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc

                Comment


                • #48
                  I'd love to have ZFS in the kernel. It's my favorite file system for servers. The featureset is amazing. Integrating RAID functionality into file systems is really the way of the future, since having the FS be aware of the underlying disks makes data integrity much more holistic.

                  I'd also love for BTRFS to have 2+ years of stability. There's still random data loss issues popping up, which makes it a file system I don't care to use in production. If BTRFS could be stable, I wouldn't care as much about ZFS. The proposed features are close enough that I could deal with what BTRFS doesn't have if only I didn't risk losing data by using it. Especially with RAID 5/6 support.

                  At the same time, I blame Oracle for not having ZFS in Linux. If they'd just MIT ZFS it'd get picked up super quick. Continuing to use their CDDL makes it understandably unreliable from a legal standpoint. Until that's fixed, it'll stay out of tree.

                  Comment


                  • #49
                    Originally posted by muncrief View Post

                    Btrfs and Zfs are unstable and Zfs is unsupported as well. That's the problem. In order to detect bit rot with Linux you have to take enormous risks with the data itself because of unstable and unsupported file systems. That's why I said it was a shame.
                    Omg, someone should tell these people quick! lol

                    https://medium.com/codedotgov/oss-sp...x-6596fca6e5f6

                    *Only* 30,000 spindles on ZoL.. Amount of data lost in over 10 years = none.

                    Linus should tell them not to use that.. ZFS is also used to store data for the Large Hadron Collider.. maybe Linus has some suggestions on how they should manage their data.
                    Last edited by k1e0x; 01-09-2020, 09:45 PM.

                    Comment


                    • #50
                      Originally posted by k1e0x View Post

                      Source?
                      Former SUN president Jonathan Schwarz: https://www.cnet.com/news/sun-critic...ource-license/


                      Here is the creator of DTrace saying that isn't true. (DTrace uses the same License) He explains why they didn't use the GPL also.
                      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-zRN7XLCRhc
                      Who owns DTrace? Oracle which licensed it since 0.6.1 under GPL and UPL to facilitate the port on Linux kernel.
                      Reference:https://oss.oracle.com/projects/DTrace/
                      unlike ZFS from which Oracle is unwilling to re-license

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X