On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 21:18 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote:
> 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.

Definitely not true.

>  This one is different - zfs is
> in active development, with highly welcomed features like
> de-duplication coming.

I can't read the future, or really say the future directions of any of
the sun projects.  What I do know is that btrfs development will
continue, and that Oracle's work on btrfs will not end or decrease.


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