1 |
On 18 August 2010 21:49, Joerg Schilling < |
2 |
Joerg.Schilling@××××××××××××××××.de> wrote: |
3 |
|
4 |
> Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com> wrote: |
5 |
> |
6 |
> > On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote: |
7 |
> > > Clear now, thanks. |
8 |
> > > |
9 |
> > > |
10 |
> > > If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS. |
11 |
> > > |
12 |
> > > |
13 |
> > > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong? |
14 |
> |
15 |
> Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained? |
16 |
> |
17 |
> |
18 |
I was unsure, thats why I asked if I was wrong. My bad. |
19 |
|
20 |
> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to |
21 |
> > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of |
22 |
> > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with |
23 |
> > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in |
24 |
> > any way--it worked okay. |
25 |
> |
26 |
> ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to |
27 |
> the |
28 |
> BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? |
29 |
> |
30 |
> |
31 |
Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL, which is incompatible with GNU GPL, |
32 |
so it cant be distributed with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to |
33 |
FUSE. |
34 |
|
35 |
Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years |
36 |
> ago. |
37 |
> For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the |
38 |
> level |
39 |
> of stability currently seen with ZFS. |
40 |
> |
41 |
> |
42 |
ZFS was announced on 2004. So approximately six year, not ten. Besides, |
43 |
things in |
44 |
computer world do not always work that linearly, you know. |