On 2013-09-04 2:49 AM, Marc Stürmer m...@marc-stuermer.de wrote:
Well in my point of view it boils down to that: someone wants to use ZFS
on Linux. Fine. This means you've got to be a good citizen and obey its
license, of course.
It is for those legal reasons that ZFS is not included into the
Am 02.09.2013 10:47, schrieb Joerg Schilling:
Solaris is dynamic from the beginning:
Well in my point of view it boils down to that: someone wants to use ZFS
on Linux. Fine. This means you've got to be a good citizen and obey its
license, of course.
It is for those legal reasons that ZFS
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Grub works this way:
1) It loads /platform/i86pc/kernel/$ISADIR/unix
Question... how does it read that file off a ZFS partition? OK, so
ZFS code has to be installed statically into GRUB instead of statically
into the kernel. Please stop the
On Mon, Sep 2, 2013 at 4:47 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
the disk... OOPS. This is a classic chicken and egg situation.
On Solaris no problem with loadable modules - everything is
dynamically loaded.
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
containing the kernel is
also a zfs filesystem, then your grub needs a driver that can read
that filesystem.
Well sys-boot/grub-2.00 provides one. See /boot/grub/zfs.mod
You don't need grub2, a capable older grub does it also, see:
The 04/09/13, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Linux does not contain code to boot AFAIK
Sure, it does. You can boot on the kernel directly without a boot
manager.
--
Nicolas Sebrecht
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.orgwrote:
Is there any reason that the creation, use and maintenance of the
initramfs couldn't be as simple as a checkbox in the kernel config, so that
running 'make' after the kernel was configured would automatically build
it?
Douglas J Hunley wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 10:30 AM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org
mailto:tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
Is there any reason that the creation, use and maintenance of the
initramfs couldn't be as simple as a checkbox in the kernel
config, so that
On Mon, Sep 02, 2013 at 10:47:35AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
At what point does grub present a zfs interface for the kernel to use?
After it booted the kernel
You may not know dynamic kernels as Linux is a static kernel that
just may load
Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
the disk... OOPS. This is a classic chicken and egg situation.
On Solaris no problem with loadable modules - everything is
dynamically loaded. ***YOU NEED A GRUB THAT UNDERSTANDS ZFS AND THAT
GIVES A ZFS INTERFACE TO THE KERNEL TO USE
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
You can get away with most stuff as modules; ***BUT NOT THE ROOT
FILESYSTEM***. Think about it for a minute. Gentoo reads modules off
the disk. If the code for the root filesystem is a module, Gentoo would
have to read the module off the disk to
On 2013-08-31 7:29 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Tanstaafltansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
You must have missed the point that this is for*servers*, that most
people*disable modules* on. I*know* that it is available as a module.
Why, for security reasons?
On 2013-08-31 11:55 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
Also, I really wonder what the point is in having to use
initramfs on a system where /usr is part of /.
You don't, it is only *required* if you have a separate /usr... in fact
that is what the whole argument was about.
At
On 2013-08-31 7:32 AM, Alon Bar-Lev alo...@gentoo.org wrote:
If this is not mainline, and it is not trivial gentoo kernels
maintainer patch, and you must have this as static, you can just put
the patch within/etc/portage/patches/sys-kernel/gentoo-sources/, so
it will patch your kernel every time
On 2013-09-01 12:31 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, support for an initramfs is not actually a file system
(it's not even in the File systems section of the kernel
configuration, is in General setup); it's not possible to have
initramfs as a module (that would make no
On 01/09/2013 16:30, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-09-01 12:31 AM, Canek Peláez Valdés can...@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, support for an initramfs is not actually a file system
(it's not even in the File systems section of the kernel
configuration, is in General setup); it's not possible to have
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 09:49:23AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
You can get away with most stuff as modules; ***BUT NOT THE ROOT
FILESYSTEM***. Think about it for a minute. Gentoo reads modules off
the disk. If the code for the root filesystem
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 10:11:01AM -0400, Tanstaafl wrote
You don't, it is only *required* if you have a separate /usr... in fact
that is what the whole argument was about.
At least that is my understanding of the situation now... please don't
tell me I'm wrong and there was another vote
On Sep 2, 2013 5:21 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 09:49:23AM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
You can get away with most stuff as modules; ***BUT NOT THE ROOT
FILESYSTEM***. Think about it for a minute.
On Sun, Sep 01, 2013 at 01:41:30PM +0800, Mark David Dumlao wrote
Case in point - do you enable all the ext4 options, like acls and
whatnot? Let's say no.
What if you suddenly have to mount an external hard disk to
recover some system on your server and the hard disk uses those ext4
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 21:21:10 Alan McKinnon wrote:
Ahem, Mr Bothwick!
Our friend with the thing about free lunches needs you to demonstrate
your penmanship, considering you have some proven results in this area.
...and I'd happily act as editor...
:-) ;-)
--
Regards,
Peter
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 12:10 PM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:29,
Pandu Poluan pa...@poluan.info wrote:
Well, if you follow Tanstaafl in the other thread, you'll see that he
wants ZFS to be integrated into the kernel, not existing as a kernel
module.
But why does someone want things to be inside a static kernel?
Since 1991/1992, Solaris does not have
On 2013-08-31 1:10 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for a problem that's already solved by
installing sys-kernel/module-rebuild and running module-rebuild rebuild
after every kernel update, which is how nvidia, broadcom, and other
kernel modules
On 2013-08-31 7:04 AM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Everything is dynamic, you would however put a lot of effort into the linux
kernel to get to that state...e.g. automated major device numbering.
??? I've been running my servers without modules since... I started
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-31 1:10 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for a problem that's already solved by
installing sys-kernel/module-rebuild and running module-rebuild rebuild
after every kernel update, which
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 2:28 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-31 7:04 AM, Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de
wrote:
Everything is dynamic, you would however put a lot of effort into the linux
kernel to get to that state...e.g. automated major device
In linux.gentoo.user, Mr Schilling wrote:
On Solaris, you can disable loading unsigned modules, is this not supported
by
Linux?
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
--
Regards,
Gregory.
Gregory Shearman zek...@gmail.com wrote:
In linux.gentoo.user, Mr Schilling wrote:
On Solaris, you can disable loading unsigned modules, is this not
supported by
Linux?
CONFIG_MODULE_SIG
So there seems to be no real need to create a static linux kernel with ZFS
inside.
Jörg
--
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 7:25 PM, Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-31 1:10 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
Sounds like an awful lot of trouble for a problem that's already solved
by
installing sys-kernel/module-rebuild and running module-rebuild rebuild
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:19:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
So there seems to be no real need to create a static linux kernel
with ZFS inside.
See
http://www.gentoo.org/doc/en/handbook/handbook-amd64.xml?full=1#book_part1_chap7
Now go to File Systems and select support for the
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 7:13 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:19:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
So there seems to be no real need to create a static linux kernel
with ZFS inside.
See
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:19:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
So there seems to be no real need to create a static linux kernel
with ZFS inside.
See
On Sep 1, 2013 7:51 AM, Mark David Dumlao madum...@gmail.com wrote:
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 8:13 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 02:19:56PM +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote
So there seems to be no real need to create a static linux kernel
with ZFS inside.
I usally use ext4 as filesystem.
# lsmod|grep ext
ext3 100768 0
jbd39586 1 ext3
ext2 49572 0
ext4 263621 1
crc16 1255 2 ext4,bluetooth
mbcache 4450 3 ext2,ext3,ext4
jbd2
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 10:55 PM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I usally use ext4 as filesystem.
# lsmod|grep ext
ext3 100768 0
jbd39586 1 ext3
ext2 49572 0
ext4 263621 1
crc16 1255 2
On Sun, Sep 1, 2013 at 11:55 AM, Walter Dnes waltd...@waltdnes.org wrote:
I usally use ext4 as filesystem.
# lsmod|grep ext
ext3 100768 0
jbd39586 1 ext3
ext2 49572 0
ext4 263621 1
crc16 1255 2
On 2013-08-28 7:12 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt
licenses as far as I know.
There's no limitation on*running* the code, you can fetch and patch and
edit and compile and run all you want and have it on as many
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-28 7:12 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Whether the code is compile in or a module makes no difference wrt
licenses as far as I know.
There's no limitation on*running* the code, you can fetch and patch and
edit and compile
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote:
Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party
overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained
*only* the zfs stuff, and when this overlay was
On 30/08/2013 16:44, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote:
Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party
overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that contained
*only*
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote:
Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd party
overlay *not* part of the official gentoo portage tree that
On Sat, Aug 31, 2013 at 4:16 AM, Mick michaelkintz...@gmail.com wrote:
On Friday 30 Aug 2013 15:44:35 Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-30 10:34 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 30/08/2013 16:29, Tanstaafl wrote:
Why would there be a problem if someone decided to create a 3rd
On Tue, Aug 27, 2013 at 8:03 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/2013 14:05, Tanstaafl wrote:
[-- snippy --]
Thanks Alan, starting to get excited about playing with ZFS.
How would you rate their docs and support community (for the free version)?
Support is
On 2013-08-27 5:06 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You wrote that modules become derivatives of the Linux kernel and this is the
same as writing ZFS would become a kernel derivative.
Just for clarification, I was talking about compiling ZFS support INTO
the
On 28/08/2013 12:58, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-27 5:06 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You wrote that modules become derivatives of the Linux kernel and this
is the
same as writing ZFS would become a kernel derivative.
Just for clarification, I was talking
Tanstaafl tansta...@libertytrek.org wrote:
On 2013-08-27 5:06 PM, Joerg Schilling
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
You wrote that modules become derivatives of the Linux kernel and this is
the
same as writing ZFS would become a kernel derivative.
Just for clarification, I
On 27/08/2013 04:04, Thomas Mueller wrote:
On the issue of whether ZFS can be shipped with the Linux kernel, FreeBSD
includes ZFS
with the kernel, binary and source.
So does that mean it would be OK for Linux too?
No.
FreeBSD has a different license (BSD) than Linux (GPL 2 or 3).
On 26/08/2013 23:37, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the
install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself,
it can't
Thomas Mueller mueller6...@bellsouth.net wrote:
On the issue of whether ZFS can be shipped with the Linux kernel, FreeBSD
includes ZFS with the kernel, binary and source.
So does that mean it would be OK for Linux too?
FreeBSD has a different license (BSD) than Linux (GPL 2 or 3).
For
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that the Linux kernel devs consider the license terms for
ZFS to be incompatible with GPL-2.0 and therefore ZFS cannot be
redistributed as a Linux kernel module.
Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation of
the
GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with other software.
The problem is not with CDDL, the problem is with the GPL.
ZFS in the kernel requires
On 27/08/2013 09:59, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation of
the
GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with other software.
The problem is not with CDDL, the problem is
On 27/08/2013 09:53, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
The issue is that the Linux kernel devs consider the license terms for
ZFS to be incompatible with GPL-2.0 and therefore ZFS cannot be
redistributed as a Linux kernel module.
Isn't it strange that
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
The law can!
The GPL is in conflict with the law and therefore the parts you have in
mind
are just void.
Which law is the GPL in conflict with, and in which jurisdiction, and
what is the extent of the conflict?
The GPL is in conflict
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed
source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But
you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not a license text.
You are aware that the
Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed
source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But
you are correct that the problem seem
Ummm... I didn't suggest that ZFS be shipped with or distributed with
the kernel...
I was talking about some kind of overlay or patch system, where I could
add zfs to my kernel use flag, and it would pull the gentoo-sources from
wherver it pulls them, and pul;l the patch from a
On 2013-08-26 2:23 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me was what it lets
me as the admin do:
I get all the benefits of directories with none of the downsides.
I get all the benefits of mount points with none of the downsides.
I
On 27/08/2013 13:36, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-26 2:23 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me was what it lets
me as the admin do:
I get all the benefits of directories with none of the downsides.
I get all the benefits of
On 2013-08-27 7:42 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/2013 13:36, Tanstaafl wrote:
I'm wondering what the best way would be to get something set up for ZFS
file storage. I have some older servers that I can use, so was leaning
toward FreeNAS...
Mine are HP mini-servers
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 06:33:52 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Ummm... I didn't suggest that ZFS be shipped with or distributed with
the kernel...
I was talking about some kind of overlay or patch system, where I could
add zfs to my kernel use flag, and it would pull the gentoo-sources
from
On 2013-08-27 8:25 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 06:33:52 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
Ummm... I didn't suggest that ZFS be shipped with or distributed with
the kernel...
I was talking about some kind of overlay or patch system, where I could
add zfs to my kernel
On 27/08/2013 14:05, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-27 7:42 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/2013 13:36, Tanstaafl wrote:
I'm wondering what the best way would be to get something set up for ZFS
file storage. I have some older servers that I can use, so was leaning
On 2013-08-27 9:03 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Each major.minor version has a .pdf manual published, while the next
version is in development, the docs get updated on a wiki and the final
version is an export of that. There's a forum with knowledgeable users
and the devs
On 27/08/2013 15:11, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-27 9:03 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Each major.minor version has a .pdf manual published, while the next
version is in development, the docs get updated on a wiki and the final
version is an export of that. There's a forum
On Tue, 27 Aug 2013 08:37:54 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
I already posted the script I use to do exactly that.
emerge gentoo-sources
run the script
I wonder it it would be possible to have the spl and zfs-kmod ebuilds
do this with an appropriate USE flag.
Thats what I'm looking
On 2013-08-27 9:03 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a small image (100M compressed), so just keep a copy handy
somewhere and reflash. The GUI has a function where you can backup the
running config, a restore is a simple matter of click restore in the GUI
The USBstick/CF
On 27/08/2013 17:55, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-27 9:03 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
It's a small image (100M compressed), so just keep a copy handy
somewhere and reflash. The GUI has a function where you can backup the
running config, a restore is a simple matter of click
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/2013 13:36, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-26 2:23 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me was what it
lets
me as the admin do:
I get all the benefits of directories with none
On 27/08/2013 21:24, jo...@antarean.org wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 27/08/2013 13:36, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-26 2:23 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com
wrote:
I run it on my NASes, and the thing that really sold me
On 27/08/2013 11:08, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed
source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But
you are correct that the problem seem to be humans and not
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
The permissions issue is an artifact of how NFS works. Sun designed it
to deliver entire filesystems over the network (most often /usr and-or
/home) to trusted clients. trusted being the operative word. To get
Unix permissions to work, the uid on
On 27/08/2013 11:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de wrote:
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
Isn't it strange that those people seem to have less problems with closed
source than with a license that gives more freedom than the GPL? But
Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
That's a question of packaging and bundling, which is not covered by the
GPL. But kernel code and kernel modules are not mere bundles, they are
derivative works by virtue of how tightly they integrate with the
kernel, and how the code can only
On Aug 26, 2013 5:06 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/08/2013 21:38, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-18 5:16 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different
bits of the file hierarchy as different*mount
On 26/08/2013 08:10, Pandu Poluan wrote:
The ZFS approach is better - here's the storage, now do with it what I
want but don't employ arbitrary fixed limits and structures to do it.
+1 on ZFS. It's honestly a truly *modern* filesystem.
Been using it as the storage back-end of my company's
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:02:17 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Eh? *Who* has ZFS? Certainly not the linux kernel.
FreeBSD
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it
yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code.
emerge zfs works too :)
I really
On Monday 26 Aug 2013 08:06:13 Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 00:02:17 +0200, Alan McKinnon wrote:
Eh? *Who* has ZFS? Certainly not the linux kernel.
FreeBSD
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it
yourself. Distros feel they can't
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:45:15 +0100, Mick wrote:
emerge zfs works too :)
I really like the way ZFS just lets you get on with things.
Does anyone run it on a desktop/laptop as their day to day fs?
Yes.
Any
drawbacks or gotchas? Other than reliability, how does it perform
compared
On Mon, Aug 26, 2013 at 4:56 PM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:45:15 +0100, Mick wrote:
emerge zfs works too :)
I really like the way ZFS just lets you get on with things.
Does anyone run it on a desktop/laptop as their day to day fs?
Yes.
Any
Am 26.08.2013 10:45, schrieb Mick:
Does anyone run it on a desktop/laptop as their day to day fs? Any
drawbacks or gotchas? Other than reliability, how does it perform
compared say to ext4?
Sorry for being shameless:
I once described a ZFS-based gentoo setup with encryption for the
german
On 2013-08-25 6:02 PM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it
yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code.
I know you can do this as a module - but is there an overlay or patch to
get it built directly
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:16:44 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it
yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code.
I know you can do this as a module - but is there an overlay or patch
to get it built directly into the
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Sorry for being shameless:
I once described a ZFS-based gentoo setup with encryption for the
german linux magazine. They translated it and it was published in
other parts of the world as well:
That is pretty shameless. I would
On 26/08/2013 16:38, Neil Bothwick wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Sorry for being shameless:
I once described a ZFS-based gentoo setup with encryption for the
german linux magazine. They translated it and it was published in
other parts of the world
Am 26.08.2013 16:38, schrieb Neil Bothwick:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 14:06:11 +0200, Stefan G. Weichinger wrote:
Sorry for being shameless:
I once described a ZFS-based gentoo setup with encryption for
the german linux magazine. They translated it and it was
published in other parts of the
On 2013-08-26 10:11 AM, Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 09:16:44 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
You can get ZFS on Linux with relative ease, you just have to build it
yourself. Distros feel they can't redistribute that code.
I know you can do this as a module - but is
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 12:36:30 -0400, Tanstaafl wrote:
You can do it. You have to unmask the kernel_builtin USE flag to stop
zfs bringing in zfs_kmod, then unpack the sources and run the script
to install them into the kernel tree.
snip
Very interesting, thanks... nice to know it can
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
Would be nice if there was a kernel overlay for this...
The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the
install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself, it
can't be done for you and distributed.
Why do you
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the
install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself,
it can't be done for you and distributed.
Why do you believe this?
ZFS id doubtlessly
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 19:30:05 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
The licensing conflict means that would not be possible. You have the
install the kernel source and then merge in the ZFS source yourself,
it can't be done for you and distributed.
On Mon, 26 Aug 2013 23:37:02 +0200, Joerg Schilling wrote:
But the CCDL licence of ZFS precludes its being distributed with the
kernel. At least, that's how I understand it and the fact that no
distro distributes a ZFS-enabled kernel makes me believe it is true.
Did you ever read the
Neil Bothwick n...@digimed.co.uk wrote:
Did you ever read the CDDL?
Not completely.
You should do it - it is even much shorter then GPLv3
People who believe that there is a problem use a wrong interpretation
of the GPL. The CDDL definitely does not prevent combinations with
other
On the issue of whether ZFS can be shipped with the Linux kernel, FreeBSD
includes ZFS with the kernel, binary and source.
So does that mean it would be OK for Linux too?
FreeBSD has a different license (BSD) than Linux (GPL 2 or 3).
I am not a lawyer!
Tom
On 2013-08-18 5:16 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different
bits of the file hierarchy as different*mount points*? That harks back
to the days when the only way to have a chunk of fs space be different
was to have it as
On 18/08/2013 21:38, Tanstaafl wrote:
On 2013-08-18 5:16 AM, Alan McKinnon alan.mckin...@gmail.com wrote:
While we're on the topic, what's the obsession with having different
bits of the file hierarchy as different*mount points*? That harks back
to the days when the only way to have a chunk of
On 18 August 2013, at 15:16, pk wrote:
...
1. Most of the time spent when cold booting is spent in the BIOS/UEFI
cycle (around 30 seconds), the time from grub display to login (I'm
using slim) is 5 seconds (max).
Blimey! You must have a slow BIOS cycle.
I mean, maybe my servers take that
On 19/08/2013 11:21, Stroller wrote:
On 18 August 2013, at 15:16, pk wrote:
...
1. Most of the time spent when cold booting is spent in the BIOS/UEFI
cycle (around 30 seconds), the time from grub display to login (I'm
using slim) is 5 seconds (max).
Blimey! You must have a slow BIOS
On 2013-08-19 11:21, Stroller wrote:
Blimey! You must have a slow BIOS cycle.
Yes, I bought the motherboard specifically for a slow BIOS cycle... ;-)
Joke aside, I have a SAS raid card in the machine which probes the
harddrives (four mechanical ones) which takes maybe half that time. I've
been
1 - 100 of 124 matches
Mail list logo
