Slashdot Mirror
NetApp Threatens Sellers of Appliances Running ZFS
eldavojohn writes "ZFS is licensed under the CDDL and is considered to be open source, but NetApp is sending threatening legal letters to startups who look to offer ZFS on NAS appliances. This assault on Coraid has a few people worried about the future of ZFS as NetApp rears its ugly head yet again. The CEO of Coraid replied to NetApp's demands, saying, 'We made the decision to suspend shipment after receiving a legal threat letter from NetApp Inc., suggesting that the open-source ZFS file system planned for inclusion with our EtherDrive Z-Series infringes NetApp patents.' Will NetApp effectively destroy any future ZFS might have enjoyed?"
Wait...doesn't the filesystem get created by the user of the storage device? I.E., the storage system gets hooked up to your system(s), the OS sees them as raw block devices, then the user generally puts the filesystem on top of the block device.....is this not the way the EtherDrives work?
NetApp frequently advertises with slashdot.
NetApp owns the idea of ZFS + NAS? The old "x on the internet" patent attack, eh?
THL phish sticks
Maybe not NetApp so much as Oracle.
They should go after Oracle/Sun and stop threatening people using the file system. Shenanigans!
We need a site to organise boycotts of companies that abuse the patent, trademark, or copyright system. Not everyone would need to sign on to all of them, but anyone should be able to post a call and explain their reasoning. If we got enough techies onto it who would use it at work, it could have some muscle.
For every problem, there is at least one solution that is simple, neat, and wrong.
The Wikipedia article on NetApp talks about them bringing a suit against Sun/ZFS and that Sun countersued, but doesn't mention the verdict. What happened there and why isn't the verdict applying here?
Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.
We need to announce loudly on Oracle forums that NetApp says that Solaris shops are using illegal software. There are few things that get Larry Ellison moving faster than the idea that someone might cost him a dollar.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
But Sun/Oracle will fight back and cost $$$, So 1. Attack small organizations who cant afford to fight back 2. cite their capitulation as "evidence" of the validity of their patent. 3. "License" the IP to small vendors 4. Profit
Easy. NetApp sues a small vendor, wins and then uses this win as leverage in their battle against Oracle.
So much for our magical universal file system.
Another case of cross-platform standards being ruined by a whiny patent abuser.
See the second post in the recent thread on zfs-discuss: Legality and the future of zfs...
It doesn't sound as if Netapp has a leg to stand on, so they are trying to shake down the companies while they can. Where have we seen this before?
I guess this explains OSX Server walking away from ZFS because of "license issues". Since Apple walked away in the 11th hour, I wonder if there is some real validity to NetApp's argument (at least legally).
Flexible bare-metal recovery for Linux/UNIX
The Wikipedia article on NetApp talks about them bringing a suit against Sun/ZFS and that Sun countersued, but doesn't mention the verdict.
Read all about it (the story so far, as presented by Sun/Oracle): http://www.sun.com/lawsuit/zfs, which provides links to a number of legal documents and patents and rulings from the PTO.
Basically, the patent which was central to NetApp's claim of infringement was found not to apply to ZFS. A second patent asserted to be infringed was rejected on reexamination by the PTO, but NetApp is still squirming through the appeals process. The current round of threats could be NetApp's last gasp/whimper on the topic.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
NetApp uses WAFL on their NAS. A filesystem they invented before ZFS. They claim ZFS violates patents of WAFL.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
NetApp invented WAFL before ZFS. They claim ZFS itself infringes on WAFL technology.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
It's about patents - NetApp claim that ZFS contains their patented technology (that NetApp incorporated into their WAFL filesystem).
Oracle should offer to provide indemnification to vendors. They've got a large patent portfolio of their own and obviously large assets to make them a much more formidable foe to NetApp.
NetApp has been in a legal battle over WAFL v. ZFS from before the Oracle takeover. Oracle is keenly aware of all of this.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Much as I hate these patent cases, perhaps this one has merit. NetApp built it's bussiness being a vendor of NAS systems that had extensible file systems that spanned clever raid structures, and automatic snapshoting and they did this long before ZFS. Those are the key features of ZFS. And when you pair that with NAS, well that's a NetApp in a box. I dont know what NetApps patents claim but what they did was not obvious at the time and they are actively a seller of that, not a patent troll.
Some drink at the fountain of knowledge. Others just gargle.
NetApp must die. And they can be buried in the same grave with NTP.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Given that ZFS was developed and trademarked by Sun, on what grounds does Netapp have any leg to stand on here? This is crazy.
NetApp aren't disputing that Sun developed ZFS or have a trademark on the name. This is a patent case that alleges Sun, in developing the ZFS implementation have violated patents that NetApp holds on technologies. Sure, don't RTFA, but try getting to the end of the summary.
ZFS is a game changer in the storage industry. While people are buying $250,000 NetApp installations, the exact same hardware, performance and connectivity will go for $5000 of high-end hardware and a couple of hours work with ZFS. $250,000 will easily buy you a Petabyte worth of redundant ZFS storage. Even the reasons you would otherwise buy NetApp or another proprietary storage solution (compression, de-duplication, checksums) is all implemented by ZFS.
NetApp recently lost their patents based on prior art (they basically ripped off somebody's paper and put in a patent for it), appealed it of course and now they are trying to squeeze the last money out of small shops before they get the smack down from the patent office. This is a very similar case to the Caldera/SCO cases.
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
Even though btrfs isn't in production yet, we really need a successor to it not just to replace the filesystem, but to replace the LVM layer. ZFS isn't just a filesystem, but also goes one layer lower, coordinating RAID.
I wish I had the cash to make an open source (GPL or BSD license preferably) bounty for the following in a filesystem/LVM replacement, since ZFS isn't going to be going past Sun hardware these days:
1: Deduplication on the block level. This would be selectable because in some cases, there would be performance issues to it... but a good filesystem would stick heavily duplicated blocks on fast media (flash or inner cylinders).
2: 64 bit CRCs. This way, a backup program just has to pull from the filesystem stored CRCs and it would know which files have been changed or not. This also helps with integrity checking.
3: Compression. Selectable levels would be nice, from a fast zip based to bzip2 -v9.
4: Encryption, perhaps like EncFS where encrypted directories can be cattached at will. Even better would be more elaborate (public key, smart card) key management.
5: Block device encryption. It would be nice to install the OS, set a flag that all further writes will be encrypted to a key, then proceed to copy data to the machine. This way, the machine can get set up and (ab)used without waiting for disks to encrypt.
6: TRIM support. Enough said.
7: Ability to move data so one directory might be on a three-way mirror, while the rest of the filesystem sits on a RAID-Z equivalent. This way, critical documents are protected.
8: Advanced snapshotting functionality. It would be great to be able to restore a machine by booting from a USB flash drive or CD, having the filesystem be configured to the hard disks at hand, then copy from a stored image, regardless of architecture or setup of the previous machine's drives were. This way, a machine could be snapshotted, it be moved to a completely different configuration, then restored. A good example of a nice way to restore would be IBM's Sysback utility for AIX, where one can completely redefine where data resides before kicking off a restore.
9: Advanced attributes, where files can be flagged where if they are unlinked, the OS does a manual TRIM or multiple overwrite, and so on.
10: Automatic repair of damage. Starting with Windows Server 2008, Windows does a background check to look for damage in mounted NTFS filesystems. This way, something like missing free space or other issues can be flagged before it bites someone in the next bootup. For example, when a machine is idle, it will compare written 64 bit CRCs to what is on disk to ensure that they match, and flag nonmatching files as possibly corrupt.
11: Ability to add varying amounts of ECC to a filesystem. This way, the volume can take a lot of damage, but the files are highly likely to be still readable. A good example of this is Nero's SecureDisk, where it writes invisible ECC information to burned CDs/DVDs which can be used to piece together damaged files. This way, volumes that are stored for long term archiving can sustain damage, but there is a good chance of recovering the files, or at least knowing the files were damaged.
This summary makes it sound like ZFS is teetering on the edge of destruction. I thought ZFS was used all over the place by big database warehousing organizations. I went to a PostgreSQL conference a few years back and it seemed like everyone was using it. Is ZFS in such a weak position that one patent troll could have any significant impact on it?
Maybe this is the reason BtrFS is maturing at a breakneck pace. :)
Sorry buddy but the courts have ruled that ZFS doesn't infringe NetApp's patents. Read here and here. Cry more.
Screw NetApp and their overpriced, underfeatured, patented crap. Really. I mean that.
I totally and completely agree with that summary of NetApp
With that out of the way, how does NetApp have any authority to enforce a license/patent on a piece of software they did not invent, nor hold the licensing for? ZFS was created by Sun and released under the CDDL. I am confused as to where NetApp fits into this equation other than being a troll of something that isn't even theirs to begin to troll with. I will do some digging online, but this is just effed up.
Nothing WAFL does was not done before, they just use do it on cheaper hardware.
You can keep your clocks accurate with something that isn't inherently unstable and complex, like RADclock. Or for leaf nodes, you can stay with the same basic protocol but jettison a lot of the complexity by switching to SNTP.
They are not saying "on a NAS", they are saying ZFS infringes WAFL, regardless of whether it is on a NAS. My impression is that currently some prior art is seeming to render those claims moot, but the crux of it is not it being on a NAS, the crux of it is ZFS as a technology versus WAFL as a technology regardless of context. The comparison of 'x on the internet' isn't quite spot on, it's at least better than that.
In terms of going after the 'users' rather than the 'developers', the relationship here is certainly questionable. I've seen cases where something like this is brought upon a vendor who is legally entitled to pretty much pass the liability on to a supplier. If NAS vendor X gets sued and was using Solaris, they may have a contract to pass the entire mess to Oracle. However, if NAS vendor X is using FreeBSD, NAS vendor X may well be on the hook for use of that technology.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
http://blogs.netapp.com/dave/2007/09/netapp-sues-sun.html The victim has become the offender.
NetApp is suing Sun (and now Oracle) over ZFS because they *claim* it violates patents they hold that they implemented in their own WAFL fs. WAFL does predate ZFS. NetApp was granted patents in WAFL that ZFS seems to also do, but prior-art may have caused those patents to be invalid.
They are suing vendors that also use ZFS probably because those vendors are either licensing from Oracle (in which case indemnification may just pass this on) or are using FreeBSD, which makes the link between the vendor and Oracle a bit more odd and possible has the vendor on the hook for liability.
XML is like violence. If it doesn't solve the problem, use more.
Yes but Berkley invented FFS before WAFL. While not patented, WAFL implements many of the features of found in FFS eg cheap snapshots, meta-data structure(which allow WAFL to work as it does), etc.
Both WAFL and ZFS are a fork of ideas and methods used in FFS. I don't know the nature of the patents NetApp holds, but if they are these features which ZFS implements then it would be terrible shame if they were able to control this market. That jeopardizes all similar FS's like HammerFS, and which ever linux fs is the next promised saviour as these are becoming more of a requirement than option.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
It might be worth reading through NetApp's original ZFS patent lawsuit vs Sun before making wild speculations. It seems to me that they are now trying to sue other, smaller companies after their original attempt to sue Sun had failed.
Are they going to sue IHOP over WAFL technology?
I guess this explains OSX Server walking away from ZFS because of "license issues". Since Apple walked away in the 11th hour, I wonder if there is some real validity to NetApp's argument (at least legally).
Apple walked away from ZFS because they and Sun couldn't come to a licensing/support agreement:
> Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it
> (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private
> license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and
> indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually
> agreeable terms.
I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it.
http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2009-October/033125.html
Do you usually spout off without actually trying to figure out the facts, basing your opinion on how you like / dislike the parties involved ("a decent company")?
If you'd have read the previous posts, you'd have easily found a link to how Netapp vs. Sun/Oracle is going in court. It seems that the Patent Office and the courts seem to think that NetApp's patents are mainly invalid because of prior art. Oooops!
On the other hand, I'm basing this on Sun/Oracle's info page about the lawsuit. Perhaps you'd like to show us the other side?
And the courts have said it doesn't, at least not in the way NetApp said it did the first and second time.
So that's the end of that, I guess.
If your premise was right, your conclusion would be too.
However, according to court findings, ZFS does not infringe on any of NetApp's patents. Unless an appeal succeeds, THAT is the end of the story.
The issue is that as of this moment, they are threating lawsuits against small developers over non-infringing use of a different technology.
NetApp used to be a fairly decent company, but they're slipping very fast in my books.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
I'm a happy NetApp customer and do not agree with you. ZFS has been on the opensource market long enough and documented well enough to be far out of the realm of patent-tolling.
I had an interesting candid discussion with a NetApp engineer and he also thought their legal stance on this was "dickish" and causing a lot of bad feelings overall. He's in the mindset that if they're selling a box with opensource software - fucking great! We'll sell you the support and give back to the code base with features, bug fixes, and the like. But it was nice to hear a fellow grunt in the trench speak a bit of sanity from what seems to be an insane lawsuit.
I was using automatic NetApp snapshots on a hosted ISP (back when a shell account on a remote computer that actually had bandwidth was considered useful enough to pay money for) in 1994.
FFS/UFS, AFAICT, didn't get snapshots until FreeBSD 5.
FWIW.
Kid-proof tablet..
I'd be very surprised if FFS' implementation of snapshots is in any way similar to either WAFL or ZFS. FFS descendents generally use journalling or soft updates for consistency, whereas the WAFL and ZFS snapshots are based around the tree-of-pointers method. Not sure exactly how HammerFS works (another btree-based FS?), but it appears to have its own oddball methodology that requires running a special cleanup process on it periodically.
You are correct, The cheap snapshots didn't come till ufs2 when Mckusick added the functionality. Much of the fs structure allowing such functionality was in place long before though like pointers and the upper/lower container layers of UFS. NetApp obviously did that well before BSD's and Solaris as well as some other things. My point is they were standing on the shoulders of giants to achieve it.
http://www.usenix.org/event/bsdcon02/mckusick/mckusick_html/
I'll take your word on the 94 NetApp usage, as I was still a few years away from even knowing what shell account was.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
Yes it's btree based. The special cleanup process is due to HammerFS's automatic snapshots. The fs takes a snapshot every 30 seconds, so a periodic reblocking is needed. The reblocking is trivial to implement and not much overhead either. Because of the way HammerFS is designed, it's left to the administrator of the FS to decide on the details. Reblocking is also for other things. HammerFS is also able to stream to slave computer which rocks. On the todo list is multi-master.
http://www.mail-archive.com/kernel@crater.dragonflybsd.org/msg04235.html
FFS/UFS2 snapshots are extremely similar to WAFL and ZFS, they are all copy-on-write block pointer implementations. To be clear though as it was pointed out earlier to me, NetApp implemented snapshot before FFS did.
brandelf -t FreeBSD
I can sue Sue
-ssudio!
[UID-HeinzIntel]