On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell <gmaxw...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
> <andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
>> <email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>  But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs.
>>>> Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible.
>>> May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :)
>>> Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any
>>> technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs
>> Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite)
>> some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to
>> get btrfs  (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with
>> zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues
>> and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots  and other features;
>> btrfs is free from both.
> I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment—
> But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories
> of other imported FSes (XFS),

Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm
wrong) have previously been give-aways. This one is different - zfs is
in active development, with highly welcomed features like
de-duplication coming.

> and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true.

This was one-man's effort (though a heroic one, definitely), hardly a
case to compare with.

To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" in
the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html

Reply via email to