Date: Sat, 6 Nov 2010 14:30:16 -0600 From: Chad Perrin <perrin@apotheon.com> To: FreeBSD Questions <freebsd-questions@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS License and Future Message-ID: <20101106203016.GB13095@guilt.hydra> In-Reply-To: <AANLkTinxLcrRoB6b2AcTrxHLqRCkyoWUhU=EmuvzEZQ8@mail.gmail.com> References: <AANLkTi=dKatHYLFhC35VTT4fCAKgYLKEri2yVCPtSv7g@mail.gmail.com> <AANLkTinxLcrRoB6b2AcTrxHLqRCkyoWUhU=EmuvzEZQ8@mail.gmail.com>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--cmJC7u66zC7hs+87 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable On Sat, Nov 06, 2010 at 06:52:19PM +0000, krad wrote: >=20 > the main problem is geom and ufs isnt a like for like replacement yet. Go= od > 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 have not really spent any quality time with ZFS, so I'm a little sketchy on the details. Is there anything the checksumming capabilities of ZFS do that cannot be duplicated with an external tool -- perhaps something like a filesystem integrity auditing system? >=20 > 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 bac= ked > by oracle though from what i have read, so who knows where that will go n= ow. > If oracle want to continue to push linux and it to have a decent fs, it m= ay > 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. As far as I'm aware, btrfs has not been ported to any BSD Unix systems, either -- so there's a major downside to btrfs (as compared with ZFS). >=20 > 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. I guess that depends on what you're doing with the data and what kind of external tools you have in place to protect/duplicate it in case of a problem. --=20 Chad Perrin [ original content licensed OWL: http://owl.apotheon.org ] --cmJC7u66zC7hs+87 Content-Type: application/pgp-signature Content-Disposition: inline -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.14 (FreeBSD) iEYEARECAAYFAkzVutgACgkQ9mn/Pj01uKV7wQCggfS0Rm/UvdS5twPiYpd9GtN2 vjMAnieGVr5dpk+IH4DKoTp3g+Vim21k =sgua -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- --cmJC7u66zC7hs+87--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20101106203016.GB13095>