| 1 |
Alan McKinnon wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:28:37 +0530 |
| 3 |
> Nilesh Govindrajan <me@××××××××.com> wrote: |
| 4 |
>> Exactly the reason why I wanted RAID0 and LVM in combination: more |
| 5 |
>> IOPS. ZFS looks very interesting, how stable is it? |
| 6 |
> |
| 7 |
> On Linux, not at all (it doesn't exist there except using fuse) |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
> On FreeBSD, rock solid. |
| 10 |
> On Solaris, rock solid. |
| 11 |
> |
| 12 |
> It almost seems to be everything btrfs is not... |
| 13 |
|
| 14 |
The details why this is the case are something I can never remember |
| 15 |
straight in my head, but I recall that it's due to licensing that ZFS |
| 16 |
cannot be included in the Linux kernel directly. I think it might be |
| 17 |
because the ZFS license doesn't have the Copyleft clause that the GPL |
| 18 |
requires? |
| 19 |
|
| 20 |
It's sad, because ZFS is really pretty great. I think btrfs will be |
| 21 |
pretty great too once it is stabilized, so I look forward to that. |
| 22 |
|
| 23 |
Also, I had seen some kernel patches that you can apply yourself to get |
| 24 |
ZFS in Linux without FUSE a year or two back. I never tried them, and |
| 25 |
can't attest to how stable or unstable they might be, but you could look |
| 26 |
into that as well. |
| 27 |
|
| 28 |
-- |
| 29 |
R |
Archives