1 |
On 08/18/2010 11:49 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: |
2 |
> Bill Longman <bill.longman@×××××.com> wrote: |
3 |
> |
4 |
>> On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote: |
5 |
>>> Clear now, thanks. |
6 |
>>> |
7 |
>>> |
8 |
>>> If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS. |
9 |
>>> |
10 |
>>> |
11 |
>>> AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong? |
12 |
> |
13 |
> Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained? |
14 |
|
15 |
That's Nganon's comment. I'll let him answer. |
16 |
|
17 |
> |
18 |
>> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to |
19 |
>> remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of |
20 |
>> licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with |
21 |
>> BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in |
22 |
>> any way--it worked okay. |
23 |
> |
24 |
> ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to the |
25 |
> BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? |
26 |
|
27 |
Only for getting it to run on Linux. The CDDL doesn't play well with GPL. |
28 |
|
29 |
> Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years ago. |
30 |
> For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the level |
31 |
> of stability currently seen with ZFS. |
32 |
|
33 |
Might take even less! |