Slashdot Mirror
Native ZFS Is Coming To Linux Next Month
An anonymous reader writes "Phoronix is reporting that an Indian technology company has been porting the ZFS filesystem to Linux and will be releasing it next month as a native kernel module without a dependence on FUSE. 'In terms of how native ZFS for Linux is being handled by this Indian company, they are releasing their ported ZFS code under the Common Development & Distribution License and will not be attempting to go for mainline integration. Instead, this company will just be releasing their CDDL source-code as a build-able kernel module for users and ensuring it does not use any GPL-only symbols where there would be license conflicts. KQ Infotech also seems confident that Oracle will not attempt to take any legal action against them for this work.'"
Sun used the CDDL just to make sure Linux never got ZFS. Even that move is not going to save solaris, only open sourcing it earlier would have done that. I say this as a linux user who likes solaris and thinks it will be a shame to see it die. Well I like it once the GNUtools are installed, the solaris versions sucked.
They are both quite open, how free they are some might argue about.
No, really. I had a bunch of questions going in, and they were all answered. This is rare enough to warrant a shout out to Michael Larabel.
I disagree with some of his subjective claims like x86_64 being a substantive limitation or ZFS on Linux remaining niche (I guess that depends on how you define the niche...) but he got the national lab project, the zpool version, the Oracle (nee Sun) patent problem. Kudos.
FreeBSD 9 is probably where ZFS will wind up finding a proper home, I'm guessing.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
I don't know if that's true. I know you probably can't redistribute the kernel with the CDDL bits but you can redistribute them separately (CDDL = Common Development and Distribution License). Then all you have to do is make sure that your software (or customer) installs the right bits and then you can get a pretty decent NAS box.
Besides the legal issues, I would love to see them tackle the technical issues. ZFS itself is very clean in code, very well documented and pretty simple once you get down to the wire. The issue (and selling point) is going to be performance and upkeep and for commercial implementations support. If the upkeep is going to be similar to BSD's implementation (several versions behind) or the performance as bad as FUSE, people are just going to stick to OpenSolaris (or one of it's commercially supported decendants like Nexenta).
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com
ZFS has becoming vapor ware since apple announced snow kitty wasnt gunna support it.
I do not think that word means what you think it means.
No, they are a company that exists to make money. Saving Solaris would make them more money. Very simple. Corporations do not hate like that, they only do what they must to maximize profit.
BSD is a fine license, it was created for a real purpose, not to just protect a doomed product.
This is both Open and Free, just not quite as free as Stallman would like.
CDDL licensed code can be freely distributed and modified, so long as it is compiled with a compatible license.
This is why BSD has no issues with including ZFS. The BSD license is less restrictive than the GPL.
Instead, btrfs, hammer, etc were developed -- much better, much cleaner file systems.
How can filesystems that don't exist in stable release form yet be "better" than ZFS?
ZFS is far ahead of btrfs, both in terms of stability, features, and usability. Btrfs doesn't have parity RAID, dedupe, or replication yet. These are critical features for large-scale systems. In short, it isn't even close to ZFS. ZFS is also "cleaner" in my opinion, in both design and UI. Oracle funding most btrfs development also raises a question of btrfs momentum now that they own ZFS and Solaris.
That's not the GPL's fault. It's the fault of the IP lawyers who are dicing permissions exceedingly fine. The GPL is designed to guarantee certain freedoms at the cost of others. It does its job very well, and is well architected with a lot of forethought considering we're only on version three after 21 years. At least one of those two revisions can be blamed not on the faults of the license but on the changing legal and IP environment.
Believe it or not once upon a time if you wrote some code somebody found interesting you just sent it to them. No patents. No copyrights. No approvals from management or legal. You just sent it, happy that someone else might benefit from not redoing the work you'd done once already. The idea of profiting from the derivatives they might make, or the derivatives of the derivatives, was simply not an idea that would occur to a normal person. If you had suggested such a thing at that time we'd have thought it hilarious.
And now I have to point to the onion on my belt, which was the fashion in my day.
Help stamp out iliturcy.