Well, I tried.
It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not
want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this
thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible?
So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license?
--
Just me,
Wire ...
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I tried.
It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not
want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this
thread to
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible?
So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license?
So
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible?
So why do you think should it
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
On the flip side, why shouldn't it be?
Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the
license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux??
How about asking
As Joerg noted (and I've looked at fairly extensively), the VFS layer in
Linux is radically different than either FreeBSD or Solaris, and ZFS
would require extensive reworking before being implemented - the port is
nowhere near as simple as the one from Solaris to FreeBSD.
Also, note that
On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Well, I tried.
It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing
issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did
not
want this thread to devolve
On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel.
On the flip side, why shouldn't it be?
Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the
license to GPL so that you
Joerg Schilling wrote:
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible?
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users.
For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world
population)
The paragraph below is from ZFS admin guide
Traditional Volume Management
As described in “ZFS Pooled Storage” on page 18, ZFS eliminates the need for a
separate volume
manager. ZFS operates on raw devices, so it is possible to create a storage
pool comprised of logical
volumes, either software
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept
to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to
Linux, especially since there already
exists the FUSE project.
So if you are interested in this project, I would
Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make
ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver.
Using ZFS with Linux would be mere aggregation (see GPL text).
Jörg
No, the general consensus amongst Linux folks
Hi,
regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is
udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and
then re-compressed? Or only the affected blocks are uncompressed and
then recompressed?
And, what happens exactly when a portion of a compressed
On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT
want to release a ZFS under the GPL
Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD)
who would be adversely affected by a GPL license.
--
Hello tester,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:46:52 AM, you wrote:
t Hi,
t I would like to know what changes are made to the storage
t disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to
t relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there
t way to know if storage is part
Hello Rayson,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
RH While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users.
RH
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
liking ZFS.
I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007
without ZFS dominating the agenda??
http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
That long fscks should
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Rayson,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave
Eric Schrock [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM:
On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is
anyone's guess.
This column is precise and valid. It represents the amount of
On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing.
Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
machine?!) doesn't get it. (A close 2nd for me
Here's another product which has removed the hassle out of disk
management:
http://www.drobo.com/products_demo.aspx
I wonder if they (Data Robotics) will make the Drobo work with ZFS
once Leopard is out (since it supports HFS+)?
---8---
Data Robotics has just introduced Drobo, the world’s
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you.
I would agree as well. With
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop,
Apple (and I)
On 4/17/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for
desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
machine?!) doesn't get it.
Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess
you will
filebench for example
On 4/17/07, Torrey McMahon [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Tony Galway wrote:
I had previously undertaken a benchmark that pits out of box
performance of UFS via SVM, VxFS and ZFS but was waylaid due to some
outstanding availability issues in ZFS. These have been taken care
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:08 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote:
On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote:
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
...
I belive
tester wrote:
Hi,
I would like to know what changes are made to the storage disk/lun/slice when
it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to relate to VxVM where the VTOC is
changed. In otherwords, is there way to know if storage is part of ZFS just by
examing any structure of the storage?
On 17-Apr-07, at 1:24 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/17/07, Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being
inappropriate for
desktop use (who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop
machine?!) doesn't get it.
Well, for many of those who
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote:
Toby Thain wrote:
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
liking ZFS.
I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007
without ZFS
Hello Toby,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 3:39:39 PM, you wrote:
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks
for not
liking ZFS.
TT I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
TT How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007
TT without ZFS dominating
On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Rayson,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote:
RH On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first??
Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-)
RH While ZFS is nice, I
this port was done in the case of QFS
how come they managed to release a QFS for linux?
On 4/17/07, Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling wrote:
David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL
Chris,
This option will be available in the upcoming Solaris 10 release, a
few months from now.
We'll send out a listing of the new ZFS features around that time.
Cindy
Krzys wrote:
Ah, ok, not a problem, do you know Cindy when next Solaris Update is
going to be released by SUN? Yes, I am
Did you find a resoltion to this issue?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Toby Thain wrote:
It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not
liking ZFS.
I certainly don't understand why they ignore it.
How can one have a Storage and File Systems Workshop in 2007 without
ZFS dominating the agenda??
http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/
That
On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:00:00PM -0400, Rayson Ho wrote:
Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don't see more than 10% of
the Mac users writing D programs.
But 100% of MacOS users might end up using DTrace without knowing it.
___
zfs-discuss
On 17-Apr-07, at 2:00 PM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/17/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
OS X tends to effectively elide the book larning part of using
UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship
until you don't even know it's there.
But then, I have helped people
How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its
final size before compression.
Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as
they get written to disk.
I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of
blocks.
Rich Teer,
I have a perfect app for the masses.
A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
and audio setup.
I would think the average person would want
to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
a small box versus taking up the
Hello Dan,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote:
How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its
final size before compression.
Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as
they get written to disk.
DM I guess this implies that the
Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Dan,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote:
How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its
final size before compression.
Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as
they get written to disk.
DM I guess
Hello Dan,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:59:53 PM, you wrote:
DM Robert Milkowski wrote:
Hello Dan,
Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote:
How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its
final size before compression.
Because you are NOT compressing the file
On 18/04/07, Erblichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Teer,
I have a perfect app for the masses.
A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
and audio setup.
I would think the average person would want
to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within
Shawn Walker wrote:
On 18/04/07, Erblichs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Rich Teer,
I have a perfect app for the masses.
A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV
and audio setup.
I would think the average person would want
to have access to
SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major
EVENT-TIME: Tue Apr 17 12:25:49 PDT 2007
PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-880, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: twinkie
SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0
EVENT-ID: ce624168-b522-e35b-d4e8-a8e4b9169ad1
DESC: A ZFS pool failed to open. Refer to
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which _is_ GPL
compatible?
So why do you think should
On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be
released under a License which
Remember that ZFS is a copy-on-write file system.
ZFS, much like UFS, uses indirect blocks to point to file contents. However,
unlike UFS (which supports only 8K and 1K blocks, and 1K blocks only at the end
of a file), the underlying stored data blocks can be of different sizes.
An
There are still some cases of corrupted pools that cause panics at boot (see
some of the threads from the past few weeks), so the FAQ probably needs to stay
for now.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices.
I think a tool that does file system testing will get you
better data.
OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to
reflect Oracle performance when configured for raw devices? I don't know the
current
Anton B. Rang wrote:
Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices.
I think a tool that does file system testing will get you
better data.
OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to reflect
Oracle performance when configured for raw devices?
Well, no; his quote did say software or hardware. The theory is apparently
that ZFS can do better at detecting (and with redundancy, correcting) errors
if it's dealing with raw hardware, or as nearly so as possible. Most SANs
_can_ hand out raw LUNs as well as RAID LUNs, the folks that run them
# zfs create pool raidz d1 … d8
Surely you didn't create the zfs pool on top of SVM metadevices? If so,
that's not useful; the zfs pool should be on top of raw devices.
Also, because VxFS is extent based (if I understand correctly), not unlike how
MVS manages disk space I might add, _it ought_
55 matches
Mail list logo
