Re: alternative file systems
Reco <recoverym4n@gmail.com> writes:
> Hi.
>
> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:20:50 +0200
> lee <lee@yagibdah.de> wrote:
>
>> > The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of
>> > the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel
>> > modules for video and wireless hardware among others.
>>
>> So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not?
>
> ZFS is out-of-tree kernel module. It *will* break sooner or later. Every
> out-of-tree module does.
Hm. I've seen it happening, and since then, I do not at all like the
idea of using hardware that isn't supported by something in the kernel.
When it happens, it might even be worse with file systems than it is
with hardware.
>> Which
>> kernel version is ZFS based on/for?
>
> [1] tells us that ZFS on Linux verion 0.6.3 supports kernels 2.6.26 -
> 3.16.
Cool, apparently they even test it with Debian kernels :)
>> Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for
>> that?
>
> A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2].
So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it
work?
> But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :)
I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5
provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID
levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to
software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be
safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to
try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would
bring about.
>> They need to get these license issues fixed ...
>
> Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that
> this license issue would *never* be fixed.
> Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including
> GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it?
Why don't they?
--
Hallowed are the Debians!
Reply to: