Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Developers Seem To Be Really Pursuing ZFS Root Partition Support On The Desktop

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

  • mskarbek
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Serously it's 3 packages that need to be recompiled in a specific order, and there must be a way to keep the kernel locked to the last compatible version with the ZFS package. What is so fucking hard about that.
    Nothing, it's just a matter of a meta-package that combines zfs modules with specific kernel. That is exactly what I am doing for my personal use. Works perfectly well on Fedora.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chugworth
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    It's too soon for Oracle (or anyone else equally interested in fat stacks) to nomnomnom on Canonical, they will wait until the fruit is ripe, like they did with Google and Android/Java legal battle about copyrighted API names or some shit like that for 9 billion US dollars.

    Really, in the actual reality there is no such thing as "perfectly legal". There is always some form of risk someone will come at you with bullshit like that and you have to deal with it.
    That's true, but with the way the patent system works, the same could be said for any technology. Basically anyone that comes to market with a big money-making product is exposing themselves to lawsuits from patent trolls. Canonical's lawyers have apparently looked at the issues and feel they could make a strong enough case if it were to ever go to court.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by Awesomeness View Post
    Anyone who disagrees may sue Canonical but nobody did. In reality everyone involved knows that what Canonical does is perfectly legal.
    It's too soon for Oracle (or anyone else equally interested in fat stacks) to nomnomnom on Canonical, they will wait until the fruit is ripe, like they did with Google and Android/Java legal battle about copyrighted API names or some shit like that for 9 billion US dollars.

    Really, in the actual reality there is no such thing as "perfectly legal". There is always some form of risk someone will come at you with bullshit like that and you have to deal with it.

    Leave a comment:


  • Awesomeness
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post

    As it is, Linus Torvalds himself has already settled this argument for us:

    There we go. AFS and ZFS are both kernel modules for Unix-styled file systems, use incompatible-with-GPL licenses, and share similar features to works that exist in the kernel. Because of that, any case brought before a court would likely win in ZFS's favor and potentially weaken the GPL at the same time.
    This. ZFS's compatibility layer, SPL, is under GPL and therefore totally compatible with the kernel's license.

    Anyone who disagrees may sue Canonical but nobody did. In reality everyone involved knows that what Canonical does is perfectly legal.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    Ah that's good news finally.

    I'm really getting annoyed by how Btrfs upstream is still very far from dealing with basic shit like "a drive disappears from the array" in RAID1 and "actually dealing with a degraded array without doing a silent mess until reboot, then freaking out on boot and requiring a ton of hand-holding to fix the mess".

    I'd still prefer much more OpenSUSE over that so I think I'll try to see how stable OpenSUSE Tumbleweed can be on a ZFS array first.
    I didn't have any issues getting ZFS going on Tumbleweed, Suse, or OpenSuse for non-root volumes, both 0.8 and 7.12. I couldn't say for root and I don't remember which community repo I used.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    FWIW, as of 0.8 it's just one module that is fully up-to-date with Linux 5.0rc and the zfs-utils package. We're down to two packages that all package managers can handle the dependency tracking of and there aren't anymore DKMS build order worries due to the SPL merge.
    Ah that's good news finally.

    I'm really getting annoyed by how Btrfs upstream is still very far from dealing with basic shit like "a drive disappears from the array" in RAID1 and "actually dealing with a degraded array without doing a silent mess until reboot, then freaking out on boot and requiring a ton of hand-holding to fix the mess".

    IMHO, the kernel locking part isn't an issue if you use a distribution that supports ZFS like Manjaro since it's the job of a distribution maintainer to make sure things like that are all compatible with each other. If the distribution is well maintained, that shouldn't happen.
    I'd still prefer much more OpenSUSE over that so I think I'll try to see how stable OpenSUSE Tumbleweed can be on a ZFS array first.

    Leave a comment:


  • Chugworth
    replied
    Originally posted by jpg44 View Post
    Its kind of odd people seem to be so interested in ZFS when Linux has its own GPL filesystem called btrfs which works very well. Why doesnt Canonical start acting like they are not insane and help improve btrfs? You probably cant legally or morally do ZFS in a distro because of the licensing. I am not fond of BSD licenses because companies should give back their improvements rather than take take take.
    Btrfs works up to a point. The RAID5/6 data loss bug has been left unfixed for quite some time now, which doesn't look good at all. And in my own testing I've seen issues when trying to rebuild mirrored drives if the drive is nearly full of data. When contemplating a data storage upgrade, I set up a virtual machine with several virtual drives and did some comparison testing between Btrfs and ZFS, and I ended up much more confident in ZFS.

    And of course, if Btrfs is Linux's answer to ZFS, then it sure doesn't help for Red Hat to drop it completely.

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by starshipeleven View Post
    That's still a work around though. I personally don't care. In either case I'm not the one that risks getting sued by Oracle or any other random gold digger that contributed to the kernel. It's the distro that ships it which does risk this.

    Meh, the only reason I'm not switching is that there isn't yet a single goddamn distro of those that advertise ZFS that managed to make a foolproof ZFS kernel module update procedure yet without having to use a LTS kernel. Serously it's 3 packages that need to be recompiled in a specific order, and there must be a way to keep the kernel locked to the last compatible version with the ZFS package. What is so fucking hard about that.

    When I have some time I'll probably try with OpenSUSE Tumbleweed and hope its superior package manager can deal with this arduous task.

    So, why didn't ZoL actually go through with this project? Until they change the license so they can be included in the kernel then yes it is still their own problem.
    The "project" is just a discussion for that might be a month or two old. I can understand the ZoL people not wanting to do major rewrites if it'll end up being the same situation that it currently is. It makes sense not to pull the trigger if they don't know if the Linux kernel maintainers will allow it or not.

    FWIW, as of 0.8 it's just one module that is fully up-to-date with Linux 5.0rc and the zfs-utils package. We're down to two packages that all package managers can handle the dependency tracking of and there aren't anymore DKMS build order worries due to the SPL merge. It's pretty safe as long as one sticks to ZoL supported kernels...basically don't run bleeding edge git kernels without a backup kernel in place...which is something that should be done when running a bleeding edge kernel anyways...

    ZFS 0.8 is the foolproof version you've been waiting for.

    IMHO, the kernel locking part isn't an issue if you use a distribution that supports ZFS like Manjaro since it's the job of a distribution maintainer to make sure things like that are all compatible with each other. If the distribution is well maintained, that shouldn't happen.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by gmturner View Post
    OK, just had an outburst of skepticism and tried to read the CDDL, expecting to post here some flame-bait about how everyone was complaining about too much freedom...

    But, no, that license is absolutely hugging incomprehensible. Personally, I'm pretty sure I can't afford enough lawyers to run software under that license.


    Leave a comment:


  • gmturner
    replied
    OK, just had an outburst of skepticism and tried to read the CDDL, expecting to post here some flame-bait about how everyone was complaining about too much freedom...

    But, no, that license is absolutely hugging incomprehensible. Personally, I'm pretty sure I can't afford enough lawyers to run software under that license.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X