OpenZFS 2.0 Out In 2020 With Unified Linux/FreeBSD Support, OpenZFS 3.0 With macOS

[phoronix]

Phoronix: OpenZFS 2.0 Out In 2020 With Unified Linux/FreeBSD Support, OpenZFS 3.0 With macOS

Taking place this past week in San Francisco was the annual OpenZFS Developer Summit. As usual, Matthew Ahrens as the co-founder of Sun ZFS and current OpenZFS contributor at Delphix talked about the state of the open-source ZFS efforts in his keynote...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OpenZFS-2.0-3.0-Planning

[Volta]

I wonder how many commits does it receive in comparison to Oracle's implementation?

[uid313]

I wonder how many commits does it receive in comparison to Oracle's implementation?

My guess is that Oracle's implementation doesn't get many commits these days. It seems Oracle kind of put Solaris on the back burner and isn't investing much resources at it, they seem more interested in Oracle Linux.

[horizonbrave]

Poor you BTRFS...
Hey Bcachefs, I wonder.. how you doing?
By the way, thank you OpenZFS team!!!

[starshipeleven]

Poor you BTRFS...
Hey Bcachefs, I wonder.. how you doing?
By the way, thank you OpenZFS team!!!

what's wrong with btrfs

[kylew77]

My guess is that Oracle's implementation doesn't get many commits these days. It seems Oracle kind of put Solaris on the back burner and isn't investing much resources at it, they seem more interested in Oracle Linux.

I wonder if Oracle has any competent people working for it. They have a real Unix OS that pioneered a lot of things, Dtrace, ZFS, Containers and are willing to just let it stagnate. I once read an article comparing the source code of Solaris to Linux and it said how much better engineered the Solaris code was. As an undergrad we got to install OpenSolaris and it was a rock solid system. It pains me to see Oracle not give a darn about it. Instead there best effort is a copy of Red Hat Linux? Really?

[starshipeleven]

I wonder if Oracle has any competent people working for it. They have a real Unix OS that pioneered a lot of things, Dtrace, ZFS, Containers and are willing to just let it stagnate. I once read an article comparing the source code of Solaris to Linux and it said how much better engineered the Solaris code was. As an undergrad we got to install OpenSolaris and it was a rock solid system. It pains me to see Oracle not give a darn about it. Instead there best effort is a copy of Red Hat Linux? Really?

That's the main reason people despise Oracle, they are a stereotypical evil corporation doing only evil corporation things, mostly inhabited by evil-doing men in evil-looking corporate suits.

Sun developed Solaris (and java, and ZFS, and SPARC CPU, and other nice things). Oracle just bought the whole package, sent everyone home and rode the wave until it ran out.

With Linux they have found a sweet spot where they don't even need to buy anything and can just ride the wave indefinitely (i.e. clone someone else's work and rebrand it, sell for $$$$$$ to businnesses), be it a RHEL clone with their "Oracle Linux" or a oVirt clone with their "Oracle Linux Virtualization Manager".

From some points of view, it's a good thing, at least they won't go and buy out and kill slowly some other interesting thing.

[ssokolow]

That's the main reason people despise Oracle, they are a stereotypical evil corporation doing only evil corporation things, mostly inhabited by evil-doing men in evil-looking corporate suits.

To quote Bryan Cantrill, "What you think of Oracle is even truer than you think it is."

"Do not fall into the trap of anthropomorphizing Larry Ellison"

[horizonbrave]

what's wrong with btrfs

Sorry just my usual unqualified lament
I just see btrfs development stagnant and zfs getting slowly traction in the Linux ecosystem by offering a complete solution. I think btrfs might have many technical pros over zfs (on the paper), but I think Oracle behind the scenes it's fuckin it all up...

But I'm just a non-technical, I should refrain from commenting sometimes
Thanks!

PS
wrote you a PM

[starshipeleven]

I just see btrfs development stagnant and zfs getting slowly traction in the Linux ecosystem by offering a complete solution.

I don't disagree. It seems Btrfs has reached the point where the corporate overlords are fine with it (for example the whole "write hole" thing in RAID5/6 mode that indeed still exists is irrelevant for most servers because you have an UPS anyway), and it's too complicated for most lowly consumer peasants to develop the features they want themselves.

Meanwhile, ZFS's core functionality was already developed back in the day when corporate overlords would actually want something like that. Now it is already mostly done so it's just a matter of porting stuff over. I mean their "core development" speed isn't fast either. Getting basic stuff like shrink support (even offline) took them like... 4 years? 5 years? I don't even remember anymore.
Sure they add some special features every now and then but it's always something relatively easy. They still don't have a working defrag, and yes fragmentation can become an issue on some workloads

I think btrfs might have many technical pros over zfs (on the paper), but I think Oracle behind the scenes it's fuckin it all up...

Thankfully, Oracle isn't doing much on either fronts (which is a very good thing). They have some token developers on btrfs and they do honest work on bugs and such by looking at the mailing list, but that's more or less it.

As I said, this is exactly how we want Oracle to remain, very laid back on the software/technical side of things so we can live in peace, while they focus on what evil corporate businessmen do best, license trolling for their current products (like that sending bills for Virtualbox extension usage to an ISP company that does not even have Virtualbox at all), milking money from Google with dubious legal claims about API copyright, and screwing their businness customers by selling them a rebranded RedHat product.