From owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Sat Nov 6 18:52:23 2010 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 55CB2106566B for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:52:23 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from kraduk@gmail.com) Received: from mail-ww0-f42.google.com (mail-ww0-f42.google.com [74.125.82.42]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id DB9028FC15 for ; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:52:21 +0000 (UTC) Received: by wwb22 with SMTP id 22so916534wwb.1 for ; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:52:21 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:received:received:in-reply-to :references:date:message-id:subject:from:to:cc:content-type; bh=gjuFazbIfq8n4rsnavdX5ss+9RvZ3PDnFbA6Botpqvw=; b=ZzT/lV4wW4lzXEJE5dmq0aBALs+LEwn1d86/yoRVaZYkwILU+Y9qZCbZSEo47mpPcW t0w8fBz4s/4r48ggWFh3ZIme96s1I4lPvLqF0TIGHVGtKSqD45nL4OktJEbgocD+tpjo BI6XTzQZHv79HSQnOIbnYemY7PockEb5lMtIo= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :cc:content-type; b=KhUEp5EGNXY+VBF6cbz7RqLnHnF6mNb6G/F6cT6OvzHloTG3B2cz62Jm9viZzDeNe3 4KHd50mmS4PvswMbwg+iBo1dcr9+qsostGZwl5LgwoEh6Cy2Cpx+0AL7pnKDO6lbb8SK jOHP0Sitj9OeMPHDjuSRha5Rm7THAUuIeU++s= MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.216.5.21 with SMTP id 21mr2567525wek.20.1289069539808; Sat, 06 Nov 2010 11:52:19 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.216.25.85 with HTTP; Sat, 6 Nov 2010 11:52:19 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 18:52:19 +0000 Message-ID: From: krad To: Alejandro Imass Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-Content-Filtered-By: Mailman/MimeDel 2.1.5 Cc: FreeBSD Questions Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future X-BeenThere: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: User questions List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Sat, 06 Nov 2010 18:52:23 -0000 On 5 November 2010 19:11, Alejandro Imass wrote: > Hey folks, > > A while back I started the thread "Troubles on SATA drives ZFS". I > decided to bring the zpool down check each disk and re-construct the > pool. Nevertheless, I was revising one of the ZFS error message links > and Oracle made me create a developer id to access the info. This > really pissed me off even more than teh Android suit, so it got me > thinking... > > Maybe I should go back to UFS, CCD, GEOM, etc. instead of continuing > to support f***ing Oracle. ZFS was honestly very easy and seemed very > reliable and fast, but I would like the opinion and position of people > here on ZFS before I continue using it. > > Many thanks, > Alejandro Imass > _______________________________________________ > freebsd-questions@freebsd.org mailing list > http://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-questions > To unsubscribe, send any mail to " > freebsd-questions-unsubscribe@freebsd.org" > the main problem is geom and ufs isnt a like for like replacement yet. Good as though geom is it just not as easy as zfs from an adminsistration point of view in my opinion. It may potentinally get a block checksum class but it will be a long time before its like for like. I've had a play around with btrfs, which is supposed to be an opensource equivelent to zfs. It is far from ready yet though. It may mature into a good product in the future, but its a long way off and far from polished (dam horrible from what ive seen so far). Most of its development was backed by oracle though from what i have read, so who knows where that will go now. If oracle want to continue to push linux and it to have a decent fs, it may well just be easier for them to drop the licensing issues with cddl which was preventing zfs from making it into linux. Who knows but for anything in the near to medium future there is nothing to rival zfs on the opensource market. Having said all that it really depends on whether you need the extra features of zfs. Personally I cant see how anyone with any important data can do without checksuming.