| 1 |
On 29/04/2015 00:02, walt wrote: |
| 2 |
> On 04/28/2015 08:24 AM, Neil Bothwick wrote: |
| 3 |
>> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015 17:01:49 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 4 |
> |
| 5 |
>>> Personally, I like the ZFS approach and do it all in software, catching |
| 6 |
>>> errors that RAID misses. |
| 7 |
>> |
| 8 |
>> The same is also possible with BTRFS, |
| 9 |
> |
| 10 |
> I have the impression (without knowing what I'm talking about) that BTRFS |
| 11 |
> was created to be just like ZFS, minus the software licensing problems. |
| 12 |
> |
| 13 |
> Is my impression right or wrong? |
| 14 |
|
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
As with all things, it's probably more complicated than that :-) |
| 17 |
|
| 18 |
I personally think that ZFS (from Sun Microsystems) and BTRFS (from |
| 19 |
Oracle) were originally convergent solutions to the same problem, much |
| 20 |
like Gnome and KDE both try solve the desktop problem. ZFS started out |
| 21 |
in the Solaris world, and BTRFS in the Oracle-cloned-Red-Hat world, so |
| 22 |
there is that difference. |
| 23 |
|
| 24 |
Then Oracle bought Sun and now Oracle "owns" both codebases, so who |
| 25 |
knows what's going in internally at that corporation wrt modern filesystems. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
ZFS licensing is a problem that should not exist. AFAIK, Sun owned the |
| 28 |
entire codebase and used their own license. Oracle owns it now, so there |
| 29 |
doesn't seem to be anything stopping Oracle from releasing the whole |
| 30 |
thing under multiple licenses, making the problem go away. |
| 31 |
|
| 32 |
|
| 33 |
-- |
| 34 |
Alan McKinnon |
| 35 |
alan.mckinnon@×××××.com |
Archives