Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › Better File System Design For File Server?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Better File System Design For File Server? - Page 3

post #21 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by mushroomboy View Post

Oh, I was talking about kernel patching. I know we have working kernel patch sets to use ZFS natively, haven't used them though. I have no need really for ZFS,

If you need ZFS functionality, just use BTRFS. It is essentially a ZFS clone written for Linux.

To the OP, I recommend XFS for now. When btrfs finally gets all the kinks out, it will be the de facto Linux standard for file servers.

Basically XFS is more proficient at handling large files than what ext4 is.
Skylake Build
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6600k Gigabyte Z-170 Gaming 7 Gigabyte R9 390  Gskill Ripjaws V DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 Pro Asus  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Generic EVGA NEX750 G1 Phanteks Eclipse P400 GSkill MX780 
  hide details  
Reply
Skylake Build
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6600k Gigabyte Z-170 Gaming 7 Gigabyte R9 390  Gskill Ripjaws V DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 Pro Asus  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Generic EVGA NEX750 G1 Phanteks Eclipse P400 GSkill MX780 
  hide details  
Reply
post #22 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thiussat View Post

If you need ZFS functionality, just use BTRFS. It is essentially a ZFS clone written for Linux.
It's ZFS but not as well designed (from the mailing lists and blogs I've read) and not nearly as complete. Plus - and most importantly - It's still classed as an experimental file system and definitely not ready for production systems.

Furthermore, I really don't understand Linux's constant need to re-engineer working technology. The whole premise of BtrFS is to create a GPL competitor to ZFS and it's just silly as ZFS is already pretty damn good. Instead they should have just written GPL ZFS drivers (which wouldn't have meant working from scratch like with BtrFS either as there's already basic GPL ZFS drivers in GRUB - so all the GPL / GNU fanboys would have had to do would be to extend them with snapshots et al)

Don't get me wrong, I love GPL, GNU and Linux as a whole, but I get sick of those fanboys constantly fragmenting the market with broken competitors when real solid and proven technology already exists and is already open source mad.gif
post #23 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plan9 View Post

Don't get me wrong, I love GPL, GNU and Linux as a whole, but I get sick of those fanboys constantly fragmenting the market with broken competitors when real solid and proven technology already exists and is already open source mad.gif

Not really the fault of any fanboy. Btrfs was written by paid employees of Oracle. ZFS was written several years earlier by Sun engineers. Sun refused to release ZFS under GPL and instead opted for the CDDL precisely because they didn't want it being GPL compatible. Not the fault of Linux fanboys at all.

Also I find it rather funny that Oracle now owns both Btrfs and ZFS. It will be interesting to see if they ever get around to GPL'ing ZFS.
Skylake Build
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6600k Gigabyte Z-170 Gaming 7 Gigabyte R9 390  Gskill Ripjaws V DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 Pro Asus  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Generic EVGA NEX750 G1 Phanteks Eclipse P400 GSkill MX780 
  hide details  
Reply
Skylake Build
(12 items)
 
  
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel Core i5-6600k Gigabyte Z-170 Gaming 7 Gigabyte R9 390  Gskill Ripjaws V DDR4 
Hard DriveCoolingOSMonitor
Samsung 850 Evo Corsair H115i Windows 10 Pro Asus  
KeyboardPowerCaseMouse
Generic EVGA NEX750 G1 Phanteks Eclipse P400 GSkill MX780 
  hide details  
Reply
post #24 of 24
Quote:
Originally Posted by thiussat View Post

Not really the fault of any fanboy. Btrfs was written by paid employees of Oracle. ZFS was written several years earlier by Sun engineers. Sun refused to release ZFS under GPL and instead opted for the CDDL precisely because they didn't want it being GPL compatible. Not the fault of Linux fanboys at all.
Yeah I understand the licensing perfectly (after all it was me that originally raised that issue). But you're still missing my point, there is GPL'd ZFS code and it was released by Sun as well. ZFS is just a file system - it can be patented but not licences. Thus it's only the code that's CDDL (or GPL in the case of the GRUB drivers) and thus it's completely legal for Linux devs to write a whole new and compatible ZFS drivers and licence it GPL (in fact Sun stated this themselves).

Also IIRC it was also the engineers at Sun who pushed for CDDL. They were quite adamant they didn't want their hard work to be "stolen" for Linux. There's plenty of searchable blogs on this though, so I wont waste bandwidth echoing their words.
Quote:
Originally Posted by thiussat View Post

Also I find it rather funny that Oracle now owns both Btrfs and ZFS.
Indeed, along with a few other file systems too - most notably Lustre. They also have MySQL, Solaris (obviously) and OpenOffice (now defunct) and a number of other cool technologies that they'll likely never use.

They seem great at hoovering up projects I (used) to love. frown.gif
Quote:
Originally Posted by thiussat View Post

It will be interesting to see if they ever get around to GPL'ing ZFS.
Won't happen - Oracle are very much the locusts of the FOSS world. The eat up all the open source and contribute nothing back, then when projects loose interest they just leave them to die.

This is my biggest fear for ZFS as I think Oracle wanted Sun mostly for Java (which is used heavily in their core business) and patent portfolio. In fact it's been reported that Oracle were very keen on the potential of using the Java patents against Google during the Sun/Oracle negotiation stages (the articles were publishes post litigation though).

From what I've seen, most of Sun's other technologies have been treated as a 2nd class citizen and even given up entirely on many of Sun's open source projects. Oracle have famously dropped OpenOffice, left OpenSolaris to stagnate and I'm pretty sure they've even said ZFS is now a defunct project within Oracle. However most of the Sun engineers have pretty much jumped ship and FreeBSD -IIRC- has stated they'd keep up the development even if Oracle do not (thankfully CDDL is still open source, even if it's not GPL compatible) - so the future of ZFS isn't as bleak as it could be given it's new evil foster parents.
Edited by Plan9 - 4/18/12 at 8:22am
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Linux, Unix
Overclock.net › Forums › Software, Programming and Coding › Operating Systems › Linux, Unix › Better File System Design For File Server?