Slashdot Mirror
DRBD To Be Included In Linux Kernel 2.6.33
An anonymous reader writes "The long-time Linux kernel module for block replication over TCP, DRBD, has been accepted as part of the main Linux kernel. Amid much fanfare and some slight controversy, Linus has pulled the DRBD source into the 2.6.33 tree, expected to release February, 2010. DRBD has existed as open source and been available in major distros for 10 years, but lived outside the main kernel tree in the hands of LINBIT, based in Vienna. Being accepted into the main kernel tree means better cooperation and wider user accessibility to HA data replication."
About 15 years ago, I worked for a place that used Tru64. It offered very similar technology to this. Frankly, we found typical hardware solutions to work better. Software is better at some things, but for work like this, you want it done as much in hardware as is possible.
It's a kernel module. Don't like it, don't load it.
Your "requirement": "something that the majority of Linux users need, or want" is irrelevant. There are LOTS and LOTS of drivers in the kernel for which this is true, probably MOST of them.
"it's just another layer of complexity" - NOT if you don't install the userland packages or load the kernel module.
"Personally" - you got a lotta nerve representing yourself as having a valid opinion about what does and does not constitute a useful feature.
A closed mouth gathers no foot.
They are called modules for a reason: You can add or remove at will, including whether or not you bother to build them at all. To say modules are "built into the kernel" is incorrect; module code is included with the kernel source code, but the modules themselves are only built and used if you choose.
As concerns the "insanity" of configuring a kernel, here again you have a choice: Use Ubuntu. But if you want a fast, lean, mean machine you really do want to craft your kernel to fit your specific needs.
Everything in the Universe sucks: It's the law!
I've been using linux as my main OS for the past 6 to 7 years and in all this time I never experienced any linux lockup., not even back in the beginning where we couldn't do away with compiling software by hand (where the "you need to know how to program to use linux!" was born) and when the only way to make my DSL modem work was to run a weird, convoluted shell script through the command line. So, that "lockup" accusation is, at least, very odd, particularly in this day and age.
Moreover, that weird accusation of "file permissions errors" and the need to have IT staff hired with the sole purpose of "fixing drivers" and "edit config files" also sounds like bullshit to me, specially in today's world and even after the GP stated that their workstations worked with XP and win2k, a pair of OSes which are more problematic, less stable and with a less extensive hardware support than today's popular linux distributions.
And of course, let's not forget that the GP made a point in launching that long-winded anti-linux troll while intentionally keeping out fundamental details such as what linux distribution was supposed to be installed, not to mention that it was posted anonymously. To put it in other words, the GP wrote that post intending to attack the entire linux world, insinuating that that sort of problem affects each and all distros and not a specific one, and it did it so intending to be a troll.
So, it would only be seen as "-1 truth hurts" if you didn't read the post and you also considered a "your mother is a whore" type of post as "-1 truth hurts". It's not, it is meant to insult and it is perfectly void of any objective statement.
Slashdot, fix your code or at least hire someone who is competent at it to do it for you.
That's not a licensing problem with ZFS. That's a licensing problem with Linux. ZFS integrated perfectly well with FreeBSD, license-wise.