Hi Paul,
I have been testing ZoL for a while now (somewhere around a year?) on
two separate machines:
1) dual Socket 771 Xeon , 8GB ECC RAM, 12 Seagate 1TB ES.2 HD (2x6 disk
raidz2), ubuntu oneiric, with the zfs-native/stable PPA
2) Intel Xeon CPU E31120, 8GB ECC RAM, 4 x 400GB WD RE2 ( 1 4
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently
several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for
production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with ZoL.
I'm working on a project at work involving a large(-ish)
On Wed, Apr 25, 2012 at 05:48:57AM -0700, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
recently several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was
only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course)
rather than Linux with ZoL.
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but recently
several people on this list have said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable
for production use on FreeBSD (or Solaris, of course) rather than Linux with
ZoL.
I'm
9:59am, Richard Elling wrote:
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
recently several people on this list have
said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable for production use on FreeBSD
(or Solaris, of
On Apr 25, 2012, at 10:59 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
9:59am, Richard Elling wrote:
On Apr 25, 2012, at 5:48 AM, Paul Archer wrote:
This may fall into the realm of a religious war (I hope not!), but
recently several people on this list have
said/implied that ZFS was only acceptable
To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be
likely to experience performance or stability problems?
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup
servers for an application project, the killer was
stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers
for an application project, the killer was
stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps more layer 2 cache could have
solved the problem, but it was easier to deploy ext/lvm2.
But stat times (think directory
To put it slightly differently, if I used ZoL in production, would I be likely
to experience performance or stability
problems?
I saw one team revert from ZoL (CentOS 6) back to ext on some backup servers
for an application project, the killer was
stat times (find running slow etc.), perhaps
9:08pm, Stefan Ring wrote:
Sorry for not being able to contribute any ZoL experience. I've been
pondering whether it's worth trying for a few months myself already.
Last time I checked, it didn't support the .zfs directory (for
snapshot access), which you really don't want to miss after getting
As I understand it LLNL has very large datasets on ZFS on Linux. You
could inquire with them, as well as
http://groups.google.com/a/zfsonlinux.org/group/zfs-discuss/topics?pli=1
. My guess is that it's quite stable for at least some use cases
(most likely: LLNL's!), but that may not be yours.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:15:17PM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the
desktop OS. According to his
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the
desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel
modules for Debian which implement ZFS,
On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the
desktop OS. According to his research, there are
There's also ZFS from KQInfotech.
-- Sriram
On 6/14/11, David Magda dma...@ee.ryerson.ca wrote:
On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote:
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another
Just for completeness, there is also VirtualBox which runs Solaris nicely.
--
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
2011-06-14 21:38, Marty Scholes пишет:
Just for completeness, there is also VirtualBox which runs Solaris nicely.
Are there estimates on how performant and stable would
it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with
dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same
desktop? I did
I just learned from the Phoronix website that KQ Infotech has stopped
working on ZFS for Linux, but that their github repo is still active.
Also, zfsonlinux.org mentioned earlier on this mail thread is seeing
active development.
-- Sriram
On 6/14/11, Sriram Narayanan sri...@belenix.org wrote:
Are there estimates on how performant and stable would
it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with
dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same
desktop? I did actually suggest this as a considered
variant as well ;)
I am going to try and build such a VirtualBox for my
On 6/14/2011 12:50 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
Are there estimates on how performant and stable would
it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with
dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same
desktop? I did actually suggest this as a considered
variant as well ;)
I am
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Klimov jimkli...@cos.ru wrote:
Hello,
A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop,
and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding
another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the
desktop OS. According to his
From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
1) The OpenSource definition
http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php
section 9 makes it very clear that an OSS license must not restrict
other
software and must not
Edward Ned Harvey sh...@nedharvey.com wrote:
The reasons for ZFS not in Linux must be more than just the license issue.
If Linux has ZFS, then it would be possible to do
- I/O performance analysis based on the same FS implementation
- stability analysis for data, crashes, ...
On May 5, 2008, at 9:51 PM, Bill McGonigle wrote:
Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code
because then the CDDL-based patent protections don't apply?
Some of it has already been done:
On May 6, 2008, at 12:54, eric kustarz wrote:
Some of it has already been done:
http://src.opensolaris.org/source/xref/onnv/onnv-gate/usr/src/grub/
grub-0.95/stage2/zfs-include/uberblock_impl.h
That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so
Sun has the rights to do
On Tue, 6 May 2008, Bill McGonigle wrote:
That file says 'Copyright 2007 Sun Microsystems, Inc.', though, so
Sun has the rights to do this. But being GPLv2 code, why do I have
any patent rights to include/redistribute that grub code in my
(theoretical) product (let's assume it does something
On May 6, 2008, at 14:59, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
By releasing this bit of code to Grub under the GPL v2 license, Sun
has effectively transferred rights to use that scrap of code (in
any context) regardless of any Sun patents which may apply.
Ah, yes, I was wrong on this one - I see
Is it also true that ZFS can't be re-implemented in GPLv2 code because then the
CDDL-based patent protections don't apply?
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
Hi All ;
What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel's supported?
Regards
Mertol
http://www.sun.com/ http://www.sun.com/emrkt/sigs/6g_top.gif
Mertol Ozyoney
Storage Practice - Sales Manager
Sun Microsystems, TR
Istanbul TR
Phone +902123352200
Mobile
What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported?
There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (CDDL vs. GPL).
-mg
Mario Goebbels wrote:
What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel’s supported?
There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
There won't be in kernel ZFS due to license issues (CDDL
Also if ZFS can be implemented completely outside of the Linux kernel
source tree as a plugin module then it falls into the same category of
modules as proprietary binary device drivers.
The Linux community has a strange attitude about proprietary drivers.
Otherwise I wouldn't have to put up
Mario Goebbels [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What is the status of ZFS on linux and what are the kernel???s supported?
There's sort of an experimental port to FUSE. Last I heard about it, it
isn't exactly stable and the ARC's missing too, or at least gimped.
There won't be in kernel ZFS due to
On Thu, 2007-05-31 at 13:27 +0100, Darren J Moffat wrote:
What errors and error rates have you seen?
I have seen switches flip bits in NFS traffic such that the TCP checksum
still match yet the data was corrupted. One of the ways we saw this was
when files were being checked out of
Nathan,
Keep in mind iSCSI target is only in OpenSolaris at this time.
On 05/30/2007 10:15 PM, Nathan Huisman wrote:
snip
= QUESTION #1
What is the best way to mirror two zfs pools in order to achieve a sort
of HA storage system? I don't want to have to physically swap my disks
into
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Since you are doing iSCSI and may not be running ZFS on the initiator
(client) then I highly recommend that you run with IPsec using at least AH
(or ESP with Authentication) to protect the transport. Don't assume that
your network is reliable. ZFS
Al Hopper wrote:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, Darren J Moffat wrote:
Since you are doing iSCSI and may not be running ZFS on the initiator
(client) then I highly recommend that you run with IPsec using at
least AH (or ESP with Authentication) to protect the transport. Don't
assume that your network
On 5/31/07, Darren J Moffat [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Since you are doing iSCSI and may not be running ZFS on the initiator
(client) then I highly recommend that you run with IPsec using at least
AH (or ESP with Authentication) to protect the transport. Don't assume
that your network is
Al Hopper 提到:
On Thu, 31 May 2007, David Anderson wrote:
snip .
Other:
-Others have reported that Sil3124 based SATA expansion cards work
well with Solaris.
[Sorry - don't mean to hijack this interesting thread]
I believe that there is a serious bug with the si3124 driver that
= PROBLEM
To create a disk storage system that will act as an archive point for
user data (Non-recoverable data), and also act as a back end storage
unit for virtual machines at a block level.
= BUDGET
Currently I have about 25-30k to start the project, more could be
allocated in the
On May 31, 2007, at 12:15 AM, Nathan Huisman wrote:
= PROBLEM
To create a disk storage system that will act as an archive point for
user data (Non-recoverable data), and also act as a back end storage
unit for virtual machines at a block level.
snip
Here are some tips from me. I notice
Questions I don't know answers to are omitted. I am but a nestling.
On 5/31/07, Nathan Huisman [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
= STORAGE REQUIREMENTS
5-10tb of redundant fairly high speed storage
What does high speed mean? How many users are there for this
system? Are they accessing it via
Nathan,
Some answers inline...
Nathan Huisman wrote:
= PROBLEM
To create a disk storage system that will act as an archive point for
user data (Non-recoverable data), and also act as a back end storage
unit for virtual machines at a block level.
= BUDGET
Currently I have about
Joerg Schilling,
Stepping back into the tech discussion.
If we want a port of ZFS to Linux to begin, SHOULD the kitchen
sink approach be abandoned for the 1.0 release?? For later
releases, dropped functionality could be added in.
Suggested 1.0
Nicolas Williams [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sigh. We have devolved. Every thread on OpenSolaris discuss lists
seems to devolve into a license discussion.
It is funny to see that in our case, the tecnical problems (those caused
by the fact that linux implements a different VFS interface layer)
Paul Fisher [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Is there any reason that the CDDL dictates, or that Sun would object,
to zfs being made available as an independently distributed Linux kernel
module? In other words, if I made an Nvidia-like distribution available,
would that be OK from the OpenSolaris
Bart Smaalders writes:
Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
build a ZFS for Linux) is up to you.
The problem is not with
On 13/04/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies of
Microsoft - have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL
applies ONLY to MY code as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it
has absolutely nothing to say about what you
On April 13, 2007 10:48:38 AM +0400 Ignatich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I know Sun opened most if not all ZFS related patents for OpenSolaris
community. So I repeat questions I asked in my first mail:
1. Are those patents limited to CDDL/OpenSolaris code or can by used in
GPL/Linux too?
2. If
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as licensor (*and modifications thereto*); it has
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
Bart Smaalders writes:
Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
build a ZFS for
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact that the GPL applies ONLY
to MY code
as
On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often agencies
of Microsoft
- have all foundered on the simple fact
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
Bart Smaalders writes:
Abide by the terms of the CDDL and all is well. Basically, all you
have to do is make your changes to CDDL'd files available. What you
do w/ the code you built (load it into MVS, ship a storage appliance,
build a ZFS for Linux) is
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of contributing, and I think the one that spurred
the creation of the GPL, is I use this but I need to customise it a bit. In
this
Can we please get this licensing debate OFF zfs-discuss.
The thread has long since lost any relevance to ZFS on Linux or even ZFS
in general. It instead has become yet another debate by non legally
trained people on their interpretations of one license over another.
--
Darren J Moffat
On 13-Apr-07, at 11:39 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of contributing, and I think the one
that spurred
the creation of the GPL, is I use this
Hello Rich,
Friday, April 13, 2007, 4:39:03 PM, you wrote:
RT On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
IMHO, this is a faulty conclusion.
RT And I disagree. So we'll have to agree to disagree.
The interesting use case of contributing, and I think the one that spurred
the creation of the
Hello Toby,
Friday, April 13, 2007, 3:06:44 PM, you wrote:
TT On 13-Apr-07, at 9:51 AM, Al Hopper wrote:
On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 11:51 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Those who promulgate the tag for whatever motive - often
And then you complain you can't get zfs or nvidia or wifi or ...
drivers, because you want that drivers and you want to force those
companies to give them for you under GPLv2. Some companies try to go
around that problem and there's still no consensus if it's legal or
not - but everyone is happy
Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed on this list is
Rich Teer [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as
equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I wrote
Joerg Schilling wrote:
Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
The anti-GPL kneejerk just witnessed
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a derived work from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS under
GPL in case you use it on Linux. The CDDL however allows you to use it
Ignatich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a derived work from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS
under
GPL in case you use it on
From: Joerg Schilling [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Ignatich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a derived work from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to publish ZFS
Darren Reed [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
You see no problems, I see no problems but various Linux people do,
including Linus. But as all we have is a collection of different viewpoints
and nothing has been decided in a court of law, the exact meaning is
open to interpretation/discussion.
This
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Hey,
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of
license as
equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I
On 12-Apr-07, at 8:34 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
Ignatich [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Joerg Schilling writes:
There is a lot of missunderstandings with the GPL.
Porting ZFS to Linux wouldnotmake ZFS a derived work from Linux.
I do not see why anyone could claim that there is a need to
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
want to give others the same benefit.
That's a pointless remark. Why?
BSD licensors choose that
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything
else) to GPL.
I never would. But it would be horrifying to imagine it relicensed to
BSD. (Hello, Microsoft, you just got yourself a competitive filesystem.)
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their choice
of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature of the
GPL,
Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it starts with silliness like
that?
Do you mean to
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 07:07:33PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
Now, all we have to do is respect each other. End of problem.
I think this sub-thread started with a comment by you about someone
else's kneejerk anti-GPL comments.
I don't recall any such comments in this thread. I think you might
On April 12, 2007 5:33:00 PM -0500 Nicolas Williams
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Apr 12, 2007 at 06:59:45PM -0300, Toby Thain wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 12:15 AM, Rayson Ho wrote:
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:02 AM, Shawn Walker wrote:
...
Which is funny considering how many GPL projects *love* the fact that
BSD-licensed code is easily integrable with their project, yet don't
want to give others the same benefit.
That's a
On 12/04/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 12-Apr-07, at 1:01 AM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of
license as
equally as Sun,
On 12-Apr-07, at 7:21 PM, Rich Teer wrote:
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
Individually, Linux contributors have every right to retain their
choice
of license for software they produce. But given the viral nature
of the
GPL,
Is it worth reading the rest of your post, if it
Hello Ignatich,
Thursday, April 12, 2007, 12:32:13 AM, you wrote:
I Hello,
I I believe that ZFS and it's concepts is truly revolutionary to the
I point that I no longer see any OS as modern if it does not have
I comparable storage functionality. Therefore I think that file
I system/disk manager
On 4/11/07, Robert Milkowski [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's
license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear
then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.
Agreed.
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the
Linux kernel's license would require the consent of every
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing the
Linux kernel's license would require the
Robert Milkowski writes:
I'm looking closely to GPLv3 but maybe Linux should change it's
license to actually provide more freedom and problem would disappear
then. See ZFS being ported to FreeBSD.
Will GPLv3 be CDDL compatible? I don't think so, but I'm no lawyer.
Perhaps somebody with more
On Thu, 12 Apr 2007, Ignatich wrote:
Does Sun have plans to dual license ZFS as GPL so it can be ported to native
Linux?
I don't work for Sun so I can't speak for them. The last I heard was that
Sun was looking at GPLv3, and considering its use for one or more projects,
either dual licensed
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with this sentiment, but the reality is that changing
On 4/11/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license
as equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote:
I hope this isn't turning into a License flame war. But why do Linux
contributors not deserve the right to retain their choice of license as
equally as Sun, or any other copyright holder, does?
Read what I wrote again, more slowly.
Individually, Linux
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Hey, then just don't *keep on* asking to relicense ZFS (and anything
else) to GPL.
Amen to that!
I don't think a lot of Solaris users ask on the Linux kernel mailing
list to relicense Linux kernel components to CDDL so that they can use
the features on
On 11/04/07, Toby Thain [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 11-Apr-07, at 8:25 PM, Ignatich wrote:
Rich Teer writes:
On Wed, 11 Apr 2007, Rayson Ho wrote:
Why does everyone need to be compatible with Linux?? Why not Linux
changes its license and be compatible with *BSD and Solaris??
I agree with
There have been extensive discussions on loadable modules and licensing
w/r/t the GPLv2 in the linux kernel. nVidia, amongst others, pushed hard
to allow for non-GPL-compatible licensed code to be allowed as a Linux
kernel module. However, the kernel developers' consensus seems to have
come
Erik Trimble [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
There have been extensive discussions on loadable modules and licensing
w/r/t the GPLv2 in the linux kernel. nVidia, amongst others, pushed hard
to allow for non-GPL-compatible licensed code to be allowed as a Linux
kernel module. However, the kernel
I'm curious whether there is a version of Linux 2.6 ZFS available?
Many thanks.
This message posted from opensolaris.org
___
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
On 11/6/06, Yuen L. Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm curious whether there is a version of Linux 2.6 ZFS available?Many thanks.sorry there is no ZFS in Linux, and given current stands of Linus Torvalds and the current Kernel team there never will be, because Linux is GPLv2 and it is incompatible
James Dickens wrote:
On 11/6/06, Yuen L. Lee [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'm
curious whether there is a version of Linux 2.6 ZFS available?
Many thanks.
sorry there is no ZFS in Linux, and given current stands of Linus
Torvalds and the current Kernel team there never will be, because
97 matches
Mail list logo
