Ubuntu Has Plans For Btrfs In 2011, 2012

[kraftman]

DTrace with the same license, is ported to Mac OS X - so the license is not actually a problem when we talk about ZFS. DTrace is also ported to QNX and FreeBSD.

I thought if we're talking about btrfs we're talking about Linux (isn't this obvious?), so the license is a big problem.

[kebabbert]

Why it's a bad strategy? I think btrfs is here to kill ZFS.

I think that copying is a bad strategy, because you will never catch up. It is better to do some new innovative work, instead of copying everything ZFS does, and slightly improve what ZFS does. BTRFS is just a ZFS wannabe. I would prefer the creation of a new innovative filesystem that is way better than ZFS, not just a copy. When BTRFS will be released v1.0 then ZFS has evolved and is even better than today. BTRFS will never be able to catch up unless they do something radically different. A while ago, ZFS announced deduplication, and now BTRFS also wants dedup. Later, when ZFS announces another new functionality, then BTRFS also wants it. Why not the other way around? Why not BTRFS does new innovative stuff, that ZFS wants to copy?

Be a leader, not a follower. BTRFS needs to change strategy to be a leader, and not follow - which is a bad strategy.

How is porting to Mac OS X relevant to porting to Linux?

I am saying that ZFS is ported to other OSes. It is possible to do.

Incidentally, Oracle now both own ZFS and support btrfs development so I'll be interested to see what they do from here.

Me too. Personally, I think it would be a good thing if ZFS was ported to Linux because ZFS is so good, and your data is finally safe with ZFS. If new top modern filesystems such as ZFS, wide spread then it is good for all of us because then we can kill old legacy filesystems. And, it is easier to exchange data from system to system with ZFS, even between CPUs with different endianness, or different OSes!

[Jimbo]

ZFS took about 5 years to be fully developed and feature rich. And now is one of the best FS.

Industry is demanding a FS like ZFS on linux, because of its nice features, why not to copy it? because you think it is not original??
do u think that in 2 years of development btrfs has any possibility of be better than ZFS?

Let's a chance to BTRFS to catch ZFS and then we will see.

[Jimbo]

Be better than ZFS doesnt matter.

People are demanding ZFS features, if BTRFS is developed with 80% ZFS features and 80% ZFS performance good, if it finalizes with 120% 120% better.

[kebabbert]

ZFS took about 5 years to be fully developed and feature rich. And now is one of the best FS.

Industry is demanding a FS like ZFS on linux, because of its nice features, why not to copy it? because you think it is not original??
do u think that in 2 years of development btrfs has any possibility of be better than ZFS?

Let's a chance to BTRFS to catch ZFS and then we will see.

Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?

Of course it is good if similar file systems as ZFS are spread. But I am talking about the possibility of BTRFS to kill ZFS. I do not see that happen if BTRFS is a weaker copy?

[Jimbo]

Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?

Of course it is good if similar file systems as ZFS are spread. But I am talking about the possibility of BTRFS to kill ZFS. I do not see that happen if BTRFS is a weaker copy?

I repeat, "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" ?? in my point of view, that is not important.

There is a *real need* of subvolumes, snapsot, data integrity... on data centers and other sectors. So there is a need of BTRFS as a linux clone of ZFS.

Who knows if BTRFS will be better tan ZFS?? lets kill ZFS on future projects: ZFS 2? or BTRFS2? for now, there is a need of those ZFS features. Once implemented, you can look for improvement.

[kraftman]

Yes, I agree with you. But if "BTRFS is here to kill ZFS" then BTRFS should not be a lesser copy of ZFS. Instead it should do something new and innovative - otherwise I doubt it can kill ZFS?

In my opinion btrfs just has to bring ZFS features to Linux to kill ZFS in the future. Btw. while the ZFS is a Zeta file system what new, better can be discovered? You've got to catch up first and then you can race.

[kebabbert]

In my opinion btrfs just has to bring ZFS features to Linux to kill ZFS in the future.

Ah, ok. Well, I dont agree. But we have to see in 5-10 years if you are correct or not.

Btw. while the ZFS is a Zeta file system what new, better can be discovered? You've got to catch up first and then you can race.

The problem is that ZFS development will not stand still. It is like Wine, which copies WinXP. But meanwhile MS has released Vista, and Win7. And then will release Win8. Wine will never catch up.

I think it is a bad idea to catch up. I think it is better to do like Sun did: innovate and come up with a totally new file system different from everything else on the market. Instead Linux people should discard everything known about file systems, and try to make a new solution - much better than ZFS. Not just a copy. BTRFS will not be able to catch up ZFS. This is my opinion and you are free to disagree.

[smitty3268]

I am saying that ZFS is ported to other OSes. It is possible to do.

Yes, but only to OSes that aren't licensed under the GPL. They can legally copy/paste ZFS code into their OS, but Sun specifically designed their license to freeze out GPL software. No doubt because Linux was their main competition. A ZFS port to linux would require building it from scratch based on specs and reverse engineering, unlike the BSD/Mac ports. It would also likely be just as difficult as creating a new filesystem like btrfs, so Oracle decided to go that way instead.

[Jimbo]

ZFS is an outstanding advanced FS, possible the best, acclaimed everywhere by professionals. The idea of : lets go we have to be more original we have to do a better FS now, it's a little innocent. It's my opinion .