Oracle Could Still Make ZFS A First-Class Upstream Linux File-System

[starshipeleven]

btrfs is a dead end.

Just like your mother.
That said, Oracle ships btrfs as a major feature in their Oracle Linux, that is what they are using to replace Solaris.

[starshipeleven]

ZFS is not compatible because Stallman doesn't want to. The FSF keeps a hand picked list of license is makes artificially compatible with the GPLv3, including the Apache License but the CDDL is not something he can control and it's all about control.

Linux kernel is GPLv2, and Stallman calls FOSS also permissive licenses like Apache or MIT.

[starshipeleven]

Though judging by recent commit, BTRFS seems to be openSUSE's puppy as well.
(See openSUSE's recent announcement explaining why the think keeping BTRFS as their main FS, despite RedHat dropping it)

As is Fujitsu's, Facebook's, and others's.

Oracle is a major contributor, but they aren't stupid, they prefer not paying the full price of development if they can.

With "it's their puppy" I'm referring to bold statements like these http://www.oracle.com/technetwork/se...w-1898045.html
Oracle is committed to making Btrfs the most reliable and feature-rich file system for Linux.

[sdack]

btrfs is a dead end. ...

And now, please, compare it to Donald Trump so we can continue to have a laugh at your comments.

[anarki2]

I really don't see this happening. I _wish_ it would, but highly unprobable. Both ZFS and Solaris are reduced to form a basis for the ZFS Storage Appliance, and that's pretty much it, folks. And I'm not talking out of my @ss, that's what Oracle reps told us.

[k1l_]

As is Fujitsu's, Facebook's, and others's.

The big issue so far is, that some big Players like Facebook only work on stuff from btrfs they need their own. If its working for their setups and the rest is broken but doesnt touch them, they dont care.
Like the raid 5/6 issue. RedHat could not motivate their devs to work on btrfs, so they start making their own thing.

BTT:
the issue of the patents from NetApp are a very interesting detail i had not in mind so far. But since most of them ran out already i really see light at the end of the tunnel that some day we see proper linux zfs support. and that is what most of us want, btrfs is even just a zfs wannabe.

[starshipeleven]

The big issue so far is, that some big Players like Facebook only work on stuff from btrfs they need their own. If its working for their setups and the rest is broken but doesnt touch them, they dont care.

This is somewhat normal, Facebook isn't a charity, nor any other company involved. Each one develops the features they care most about, and share them with everyone. Their developers are paid, it's a job.

Oracle and Fujitsu, plus some people not using company emails are the ones contributing most in the RAID 5/6, or detection of device disconnection, or fixing other shit.

Facebook devs are only a fraction of the total.

Like the raid 5/6 issue. RedHat could not motivate their devs to work on btrfs, so they start making their own thing.

RedHat only has a token presence in btrfs development (I saw only one guy and sends code rarely), and "their own thing" is basically a wrapper for current technologies, not a replacement for btrfs.
It's just that Red Hat does not think they really need btrfs, which is again connected to the fact that they aren't a charity and if their customers don't care, then why should they.

[k1l_]

i think we both can agree on that.
My point is just, that people keep saying: "Look facebook is using and developing for btrfs, so that is way better!" But for average joe that doesnt help him, like the raid 5/6 issue showed.

[starshipeleven]

My point is just, that people keep saying: "Look facebook is using and developing for btrfs, so that is way better!" But for average joe that doesnt help him, like the raid 5/6 issue showed.

I'm unsure of what point you're trying to get across, but I don't like the most likely ones I'm guessing.

Facebook is working on stuff that does interest other people too, like better compression and heuristics (logic that decides when it is worth it to compress a block and when it is not worth it), and general performance improvements. They aren't doing shit that benefits only them.

Also, the "raid 5/6 issue" does not show what you think it shows. RAID 5/6 is still marked as unstable, it's still a "work in progress", and is still actively developed (mostly by others as mentioned above). But it does not impact the other btrfs features, so yeah, an unstable feature had bad bugs, and now has less bad bugs, but still isn't safe... so what?

[oiaohm]

How does being GPL/Linux incompatible affect any of that? If ZFS violates the patents, they're already vulnerable to lawsuits.

Netapp and Oracle current and Sun before them come to a settlement. Netapp does not push the patents as long as ZFS stays licensed the way it is. So until Netapp patents can be ignored or expired ZFS has issue attempting to be licensed GPLv2. Patent settlement between Netapp and Oracle covers the CDDL license.

Google should buy Oracle and open source everything Oracle have. End of story.

So this could change absolutely nothing as with ZFS the issue is not that it open source but that is license is restricted to make patent holder Netapp happy. So if you are talking about using money to deal with this problem it would be buy at least Netapp out and then possible Orcale as well. Yes Oracle creates problems at times with open source projects but this one is not 100 percent Oracle fault.

This patent nightmare is also why Oracle will most likely keep Btrfs alive until 2035. Due to them having all the development documentation on Btrfs they can defend it better against patent aggression. Why 2035. They acquired ZFS in 2010 + slow patent processing means the 17 years from data of patent approved with the 7 years of messing around the patent office can do results +25 years number to be safe now.

Yes the patent system really does make a mess of doing development these days including needing to have a back up plan in case one of your newer solution parts get sued. You would call Btrfs Orcale back-up plan to ZFS.