Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:42:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
> > I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed 
> > from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
> > thread:
> > 
> > http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists
> > 
> > I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)
> 
> Useful if accurate as the GPLv2 and Sun origin means youa re clear for
> any patents Sun used in that code but maybe not for any in the pure CDDL
> bits. Definitely positive.

Well, except remember that they only made sources available so that
GRUB could boot OpenSolaris.  Grub only requires read-only access to
the filesystem, and what was made available under GPLv2 was only a
distinct subset of the full ZFS sources.

- Ted

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote:
> [..]
> 
> I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed 
> from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
> thread:
> 
> http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists
> 
> I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)

Useful if accurate as the GPLv2 and Sun origin means youa re clear for
any patents Sun used in that code but maybe not for any in the pure CDDL
bits. Definitely positive.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote:
[..]

I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed 
from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
thread:


http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists

I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)

kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote:
[..]

I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed 
from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
thread:


http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists

I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)

kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:03:22 +0200 (CEST)
Tomasz Kłoczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote:
 [..]
 
 I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed 
 from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
 thread:
 
 http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists
 
 I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)

Useful if accurate as the GPLv2 and Sun origin means youa re clear for
any patents Sun used in that code but maybe not for any in the pure CDDL
bits. Definitely positive.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:42:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote:
  I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed 
  from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this 
  thread:
  
  http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists
  
  I'm not check completly this .. so don't beat me if it is not true :)
 
 Useful if accurate as the GPLv2 and Sun origin means youa re clear for
 any patents Sun used in that code but maybe not for any in the pure CDDL
 bits. Definitely positive.

Well, except remember that they only made sources available so that
GRUB could boot OpenSolaris.  Grub only requires read-only access to
the filesystem, and what was made available under GPLv2 was only a
distinct subset of the full ZFS sources.

- Ted

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> > 
> > Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
> > that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
> > Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
> > indication that anything was wrong.
> 
> I saw that talk, and that's not what I got out of it.  They found that
> SMART error reports _did_ correlate with drive failure.

In fact, a certain small set of SMART indicators were a very good sign
that a drive would fail.

> However, they found that the correlation was not strong enough to make
> it economically feasible to replace disks reporting SMART failures,
> since something like 70% of disks were still working a year after the
> first failure report.  Also, they found that some disks failed without
> any SMART error reports.

Indeed, SMART registered no counts at all for most failures, so on the
whole, it can't be said that SMART can predict failures.

So: not a good idea to base your backup scheme on SMART warnings, but
not entirely useless.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Matt Mackall]

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
 On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
  
  Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
  that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
  Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
  indication that anything was wrong.
 
 I saw that talk, and that's not what I got out of it.  They found that
 SMART error reports _did_ correlate with drive failure.

In fact, a certain small set of SMART indicators were a very good sign
that a drive would fail.

 However, they found that the correlation was not strong enough to make
 it economically feasible to replace disks reporting SMART failures,
 since something like 70% of disks were still working a year after the
 first failure report.  Also, they found that some disks failed without
 any SMART error reports.

Indeed, SMART registered no counts at all for most failures, so on the
whole, it can't be said that SMART can predict failures.

So: not a good idea to base your backup scheme on SMART warnings, but
not entirely useless.

-- 
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Valerie Henson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
> 
> Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
> that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
> Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
> indication that anything was wrong.

I saw that talk, and that's not what I got out of it.  They found that
SMART error reports _did_ correlate with drive failure.  See page 8
of:

http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/full_papers/pinheiro/pinheiro.pdf

(If you're not a USENIX member, you may be able to find a free
download copy elsewhere.)

However, they found that the correlation was not strong enough to make
it economically feasible to replace disks reporting SMART failures,
since something like 70% of disks were still working a year after the
first failure report.  Also, they found that some disks failed without
any SMART error reports.

Now, Google keeps multiple copies (3 in GoogleFS, last I heard) of
data, so for them, "economically feasible" means something different
than for my personal laptop hard drive.  I have twice had my laptop
hard drive start spitting SMART errors and then die within a week.  It
is economically quite sensible for me to replace my laptop drive once
it has an error, since I don't carry around 3 laptops everywhere I go.

-VAL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Valerie Henson]

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote:
 
 Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
 that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
 Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
 indication that anything was wrong.

I saw that talk, and that's not what I got out of it.  They found that
SMART error reports _did_ correlate with drive failure.  See page 8
of:

http://www.usenix.org/events/fast07/tech/full_papers/pinheiro/pinheiro.pdf

(If you're not a USENIX member, you may be able to find a free
download copy elsewhere.)

However, they found that the correlation was not strong enough to make
it economically feasible to replace disks reporting SMART failures,
since something like 70% of disks were still working a year after the
first failure report.  Also, they found that some disks failed without
any SMART error reports.

Now, Google keeps multiple copies (3 in GoogleFS, last I heard) of
data, so for them, economically feasible means something different
than for my personal laptop hard drive.  I have twice had my laptop
hard drive start spitting SMART errors and then die within a week.  It
is economically quite sensible for me to replace my laptop drive once
it has an error, since I don't carry around 3 laptops everywhere I go.

-VAL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Jeff Garzik]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced 
RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 
with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some 
bigger box ;). This small iron box have inside RAID controller (Dell uses 
in this box LSI Logic SAS MegaRAID based ctrl). Anykind combinations on 
controler level RAID was slower than using this as plain JBOD with LVM or 
MD+LVM. Diffrence between HW and soft RAID was not so big (1-6% depending 
on configuration) but allways HW produces worser results (don't ask me 
why). Finaly I decide using this disk as four RAID1 luns only because 
under Linux I can't read each phisical disk SMART data and protecting this 
by RAID on controller level and collecting SNMP traps from DRAC card was 
kind of worakaround for this (in my case it will be better constanlty 
monitor disk healt and collesting some SMART data for observe trends on 
for example zabbix graphs for try predict some faults using triggers). On 
top of this was configured diffrent types of volumes on LVM level (some 
with stripping some without, some with bigger some with smaller chunk 
size).


Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
indication that anything was wrong.

I think the main benefit of MD raid, is that it is portable, doesn't
lock you into a specific piece of hardware, and you can span multiple
controllers, and it is likely easier to have bugs in MD raid fixed that
in some raid controller's firmware if any were to be found.  Performance
advantages are a bonus of course.


SMART largely depends on how you use it.  Simply polling the current 
status will not give you all the benefits SMART provides.  On the 
dedicated servers that I rent, running the extended test ('-t long') 
often finds problems before you start losing data, or deal with a drive 
death.  Certainly not a huge sample size, but it backs up what I hear in 
the field.  Running the SMART tests on a weekly basis seems most 
effective, though you'll want to stagger the tests if running in a RAID set.


Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced 
> RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 
> with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some 
> bigger box ;). This small iron box have inside RAID controller (Dell uses 
> in this box LSI Logic SAS MegaRAID based ctrl). Anykind combinations on 
> controler level RAID was slower than using this as plain JBOD with LVM or 
> MD+LVM. Diffrence between HW and soft RAID was not so big (1-6% depending 
> on configuration) but allways HW produces worser results (don't ask me 
> why). Finaly I decide using this disk as four RAID1 luns only because 
> under Linux I can't read each phisical disk SMART data and protecting this 
> by RAID on controller level and collecting SNMP traps from DRAC card was 
> kind of worakaround for this (in my case it will be better constanlty 
> monitor disk healt and collesting some SMART data for observe trends on 
> for example zabbix graphs for try predict some faults using triggers). On 
> top of this was configured diffrent types of volumes on LVM level (some 
> with stripping some without, some with bigger some with smaller chunk 
> size).

Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
indication that anything was wrong.

I think the main benefit of MD raid, is that it is portable, doesn't
lock you into a specific piece of hardware, and you can span multiple
controllers, and it is likely easier to have bugs in MD raid fixed that
in some raid controller's firmware if any were to be found.  Performance
advantages are a bonus of course.

--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Manoj Joseph]

Alan Cox wrote:

Please do see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents



Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming.

The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its
derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux.


I thought you said "incompatible with other OS products". I believe 
there are other OS products it is quite compatible with. The ports of 
ZFS seem to confirm this.


That it is compatible with the Linux kernel was not what I was arguing. :)

-Manoj

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

> Please do see:
> http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents


Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming.

The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its
derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Manoj Joseph]

Alan Cox wrote:


The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.


Please do see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents

ZFS has been ported to some of those 'other OS products'. :)

My two cents...

-Manoj
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Manoj Joseph]

Alan Cox wrote:


The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.


Please do see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents

ZFS has been ported to some of those 'other OS products'. :)

My two cents...

-Manoj
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

 Please do see:
 http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents


Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming.

The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its
derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Manoj Joseph]

Alan Cox wrote:

Please do see:
http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents



Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming.

The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its
derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux.


I thought you said incompatible with other OS products. I believe 
there are other OS products it is quite compatible with. The ports of 
ZFS seem to confirm this.


That it is compatible with the Linux kernel was not what I was arguing. :)

-Manoj

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Lennart Sorensen]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
 Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced 
 RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 
 with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some 
 bigger box ;). This small iron box have inside RAID controller (Dell uses 
 in this box LSI Logic SAS MegaRAID based ctrl). Anykind combinations on 
 controler level RAID was slower than using this as plain JBOD with LVM or 
 MD+LVM. Diffrence between HW and soft RAID was not so big (1-6% depending 
 on configuration) but allways HW produces worser results (don't ask me 
 why). Finaly I decide using this disk as four RAID1 luns only because 
 under Linux I can't read each phisical disk SMART data and protecting this 
 by RAID on controller level and collecting SNMP traps from DRAC card was 
 kind of worakaround for this (in my case it will be better constanlty 
 monitor disk healt and collesting some SMART data for observe trends on 
 for example zabbix graphs for try predict some faults using triggers). On 
 top of this was configured diffrent types of volumes on LVM level (some 
 with stripping some without, some with bigger some with smaller chunk 
 size).

Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
indication that anything was wrong.

I think the main benefit of MD raid, is that it is portable, doesn't
lock you into a specific piece of hardware, and you can span multiple
controllers, and it is likely easier to have bugs in MD raid fixed that
in some raid controller's firmware if any were to be found.  Performance
advantages are a bonus of course.

--
Len Sorensen
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Jeff Garzik]

Lennart Sorensen wrote:

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced 
RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 
with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some 
bigger box ;). This small iron box have inside RAID controller (Dell uses 
in this box LSI Logic SAS MegaRAID based ctrl). Anykind combinations on 
controler level RAID was slower than using this as plain JBOD with LVM or 
MD+LVM. Diffrence between HW and soft RAID was not so big (1-6% depending 
on configuration) but allways HW produces worser results (don't ask me 
why). Finaly I decide using this disk as four RAID1 luns only because 
under Linux I can't read each phisical disk SMART data and protecting this 
by RAID on controller level and collecting SNMP traps from DRAC card was 
kind of worakaround for this (in my case it will be better constanlty 
monitor disk healt and collesting some SMART data for observe trends on 
for example zabbix graphs for try predict some faults using triggers). On 
top of this was configured diffrent types of volumes on LVM level (some 
with stripping some without, some with bigger some with smaller chunk 
size).


Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated
that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell?
Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of
indication that anything was wrong.

I think the main benefit of MD raid, is that it is portable, doesn't
lock you into a specific piece of hardware, and you can span multiple
controllers, and it is likely easier to have bugs in MD raid fixed that
in some raid controller's firmware if any were to be found.  Performance
advantages are a bonus of course.


SMART largely depends on how you use it.  Simply polling the current 
status will not give you all the benefits SMART provides.  On the 
dedicated servers that I rent, running the extended test ('-t long') 
often finds problems before you start losing data, or deal with a drive 
death.  Certainly not a huge sample size, but it backs up what I hear in 
the field.  Running the SMART tests on a weekly basis seems most 
effective, though you'll want to stagger the tests if running in a RAID set.


Jeff



-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> >> [..]
> >>
>  Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument
>  was allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another
>  license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
>  argument ?
> 
>  kloczek
> >>>
> >>> Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version
> >>> of this license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the
> >>> Linux kernel)
> >>
> >> So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to
> >> start work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux
> >> .. good to know :o)
> >
> > Nope. Note that I said "Except the Linux Kernel".
> >
> > After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release
> > of the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2
>
> actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years
>
> there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only
>
> > So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL
> > other than the current one applied. This change might have occurred
> > without the knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but
> > since it was done with the complete agreement of all the current
> > developers - and assumed agreement of any who contributed and are no
> > longer able to consent (since their code was originally released under
> > GPLv2) - it should stand. After all, the form of the license that applies
> > to the kernel is shipped with the kernels sources.
>
> the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb
> that the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can
> retroactivly change the license of the code that other people create.
>
> The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the
> benifit or detriment of the people who created the code.
>
> > In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
> > NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
> > services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
> > of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
> > Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
> > Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
> > kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
> >
> > Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
> > is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
> > v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
> >
> >Linus Torvalds
> > -
>
> take a look at the date that this went into the kernel

Yeah, I did afterwards. Perhaps it was because of the discussion that occurred 
then that I remember it.

> >> How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
> >> good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive
> >> in rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now*
> >> it is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing
> >> will take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
> >> something like "Linux is in GPL cage".
> >
> > Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit
> > inside the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be
> > "open source" under a license that makes demands like those of the user.
>
> and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets
> other people change the terms years later.

Agreed. This is something that I would never do. 

DRH

>
> David Lang


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David Lang]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:



On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]


Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another
license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
argument ?

kloczek


Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version of
this license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux
kernel)


So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start
work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good
to know :o)


Nope. Note that I said "Except the Linux Kernel".

After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of
the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2


actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years

there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only


So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL other
than the current one applied. This change might have occurred without the
knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but since it was
done with the complete agreement of all the current developers - and assumed
agreement of any who contributed and are no longer able to consent (since
their code was originally released under GPLv2) - it should stand. After all,
the form of the license that applies to the kernel is shipped with the
kernels sources.


the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb that 
the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can retroactivly change 
the license of the code that other people create.


The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the benifit or 
detriment of the people who created the code.



In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

   Linus Torvalds
-


take a look at the date that this went into the kernel


How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in
rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it
is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will
take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
something like "Linux is in GPL cage".


Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit inside
the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be "open source"
under a license that makes demands like those of the user.


and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets other 
people change the terms years later.


David Lang

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Roland Dreier]

 > After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of 
 > the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

This is not accurate.  As far back as I can easily check, the kernel's
COPYING file has said:

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

To be really precise, there was a trivial rewording of this sometime
around Feb 2002 to make it clearer, but the point is that the kernel
has been GPL v2 only long before the GPL v3 process started.

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> [..]
>
> >> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
> >> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another
> >> license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
> >> argument ?
> >>
> >> kloczek
> >
> > Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version of
> > this license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux
> > kernel)
>
> So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start
> work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good
> to know :o)

Nope. Note that I said "Except the Linux Kernel".

After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of 
the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL other 
than the current one applied. This change might have occurred without the 
knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but since it was 
done with the complete agreement of all the current developers - and assumed 
agreement of any who contributed and are no longer able to consent (since 
their code was originally released under GPLv2) - it should stand. After all, 
the form of the license that applies to the kernel is shipped with the 
kernels sources.

In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
 NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work".
 Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
 Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
 kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Linus Torvalds
-

So the Linux kernel, unless things change some years in the future, will never 
have a license completely compatible with the CDDL. (and the CDDL isn't 
really a "Free Software" license in the GPL vein because it makes demands 
such as retention of the header blocks and reserves Sun (or whoever is 
releasing code under the CDDL) the right to revoke the implicit patent grant 
the license offers.)

> How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
> good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in
> rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it
> is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will
> take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
> something like "Linux is in GPL cage".

Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit inside 
the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be "open source" 
under a license that makes demands like those of the user.

DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Ricardo Correia wrote:
> That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on
> non-replicated pools for a long time already.

Just a clarification, ZFS not only detects metadata corruption through
the use of checksums but, since it keeps 2-3 copies of each metadata
block on-disk (even on non-replicated pools), it also rewrites the
corrupted blocks, effectively repairing the corruption.

All of this is done transparently to the user but, of course, it's
possible to see a report of checksum failures.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]

Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license
which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?

kloczek


Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version of this
license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux kernel)


So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start 
work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good 
to know :o)
How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be 
good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in 
rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it 
is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will 
take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says 
something like "Linux is in GPL cage".


Hmm .. transforming KProbes/systemtap to someting useable as DTrace was 
started more than two years ago and I don't see end of base work (sill on 
start). Make ALSA so useable as OSS it was next three trashed years 
(because some developers stays on position "mixing audio in kernel space 
is dangerous") and also not finished in many points. LVM still isnt't 
Veritas. I don't see OpenVZ to tries be so useable and easy for managa as 
Solaris zoning (why OpenVZ people can't use the same commands syntax for 
manage zones as under Solaris .. command syntax is not patented :). Also 
.. moment .. moment .. for what I'm waiting if I can install and use 
Solaris/*BSD/MOX *NOW* ??? Why still contribute any code to project which 
seems must die ? (Is is realy true that some beeings which can't evolve in 
changeing enviroment will not survive .. ?)


EOT .. sorry

kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Florian Weimer wrote:
> 
> 
> I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that
> page is rather current. 8-/

That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on
non-replicated pools for a long time already.

Background scrubbing and the ability to see a list of corrupted files
has also been available for a long time (even longer than the above).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Florian Weimer]

* Theodore Tso:

> we can continue trying to innovate around better filesystem and LVM
> storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase the ZFS tail
> lights.

Indeed.  Here's a gem from the official ZFS FAQ:

| What can I do if ZFS panics on every boot?
| 
| ZFS is designed to survive arbitrary hardware failures through the
| use of redundancy (mirroring or RAID-Z). Unfortunately, certain
| failures in non-replicated configurations can cause ZFS to panic
| when trying to load the pool. This is a bug, and will be fixed in
| the near future (along with several other nifty features like
| background scrubbing and the ability to see a list of corrupted
| files). In the meantime, if you find yourself in the situation
| where you cannot boot due to a corrupt pool, do the followng:
| 
|1. boot using '-m milestone=none'
|2. # mount -o remount /
|3. # rm /etc/zfs/zpool.cache
|4. # reboot
| 
| This will remove all knowledge of pools from your system. You will
| have to re-create your pool and restore from backup.



I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that
page is rather current. 8-/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:22:19PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
> Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS 
> code 
> cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I 
> suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever patches are 
> needed to use it? As it stands ZFS *might* show up in Linux as a from-scratch 
> implementation, although I stress the "might" because there are patents 
> involved.

Given that Sun has reportedly filed a huge number of patents covering
ZFS and has refused to make them available for anything other than
Solaris --- and there are senior Sun programmers who have on record
stated that one of the reasons why Sun picked the CDDL was precisely
because it was incompatible with GPL and Sun fears Linux  I
wouldn't bet on Sun being willing to making a patent license available
to a hypothetical alternate implementation of the ZFS format for
Linux.

Again, this is is Sun's fault, and it's because they fear Linux, and
it may have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of
their Opteron boxes get Linux installed instead of Solaris.  The
bottom line is that people who would like ZFS need to understand that
the code is Copyright by Sun, and there are almost certainly patents
owned by Sun, and if they choose licenses that are explicitly designed
to be incompatible with Linux, we should respect Sun's deep-seated
fear of Linux, and we can continue trying to innovate around better
filesystem and LVM storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase
the ZFS tail lights.

Of course, this is all open source.  If someone wants to work on
reimplementing ZFS from scratch, either in userspace or in the kernel,
certainly the Linux community won't stop them.  Given the patent
issues Linus might not feel comfortable including it in the mainline
sources without a promise from Sun that they won't sue the pants off
of him and The Linux Foundation, but again, that's Sun's decision, and
no one else can help you there.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alistair John Strachan]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:48, Alan Cox wrote:
> > So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
> > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
> > some law ?
>
> Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.
>
> The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
> Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
> can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
> other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

This isn't universally true. Look at Java, for example, which Sun recently 
released parts of under an open source license -- not the CDDL, not a 
CDDL/xxx dual license, the GPL proper.

Indeed, Sun already have products that are dual licensed CDDL/GPL, for example 
the J2EE product.

> If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
> have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
> docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
> no other assistance of any kind.

I couldn't speculate on the rationale, but it does seem that Sun's choice to 
use _only_ the CDDL with certain software (like ZFS) is deliberate.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
> > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> >> Realy can't or don't want (?)
> >> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
> >> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
> >> some law ?
> >
> > Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is
> > several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of
> > them. Good luck!
>
> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license
> which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?
>
> kloczek

Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the "or any later version of this 
license" clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux kernel)

DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> [..]
>
> > Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
> > he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
> > the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
> > license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
> > patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
> > not anything Linux developers can help you with.
>
> Realy can't or don't want (?)

As it has been explained to you before it is "can't"

> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
> some law ?

If I've parsed this query correctly the answer is: Linux is licensed under the 
GPL and because a number of people that have contributed code to it can no 
longer agree to a change in the license because they have died this cannot be 
changed. That was explained quite clearly in several mails as well.

> And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?
> And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
> licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
> license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try
> to think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)

When Linux was licensed under the GPL there was only *ONE* real choice for 
licensing it. Linus released the code under the GPL and there it has 
remained, with Linus leading development. If Linux had *NOT* been released 
under the GPL it would not be as popular or as powerful as it is - and that 
is not an opinion but a statement of fact.

> Why this can't be fixes ?

See the previous statement and several previous mails in this thread. Linux is 
licensed under the GPL, it is the *only* license agreed to by everyone that 
has contributed code. If I remember the statistics, there have been something 
like 10,000 different people that have contributed code. Since each 
contributor holds the copyright on their code they are the *ONLY* people that 
could change the license on it. Anyone attempting to change the license 
without agreement from *everyone* that has contributed code to the kernel 
they are in violation of US and international copyright laws.

> If in this ponit in Linux "evniroment" can't be chaged .. sorry but is it
> not kind of hipocritics ?

Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS code 
cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I 
suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever patches are 
needed to use it? As it stands ZFS *might* show up in Linux as a from-scratch 
implementation, although I stress the "might" because there are patents 
involved.

DRH

(Now please, drop the subject - IMNSHO it is never going to happen)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Mike Snitzer]

On 4/17/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
> some law ?

Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.

The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Compare it to what the old Sun company did with NFS, which is now a
standard used everywhere.

If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
no other assistance of any kind. Now would be a great time to do that,
but I can't see it happening, instead they'll miss the boat just as
microsoft did with Office XML (three years ago they'd have sailed it
through ISO to the sound of fanfairs)


Maybe Ian Murdock could weigh in on this given his new position at Sun. Ian?

BTW, congrats on the new gig...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

> > That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
> > mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
> > to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
> 
> CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like "CDDL
> is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and only) CDDL ?

>From what I have read, CDDL is treading the vrry thin line between 
an actual Free license and an actual proprietary licence. Just look at the 
nonsense Mozilla Co. has gotten itself worked up about (and judging by how 
much Firefox/Iceweasel crashes on me, being like IE is quite appropriate 
in licencing too). And (if I have not been misinformed), CDDL is inspired 
by Mozilla's licence.

The FSF has something to say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
So yes, CDDL is, to me, "pseudo-"proprietary, and it would be very easy 
for them to slip up and whoops! Didn't we tell you? You can do everything 
but -that-. But of course it's still free...yeah...

> > I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
> > with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
> > moments, and made the right decision.
> 
> I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I see
> (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses which
> provides more oppened (and not closed) code.

The GPL is more about protection than openness. Someone can write code, 
throw it on the internet with no licence at all, and it's exactly as 
"open" as it is under the GPL. You can do anything you want with it in any 
way, just like under the GPL. What the GPL does is protect the code and 
its writer from being snapped up by somebody else, and in any way 
restricted: It makes sure the code STAYS open, and makes sure you are 
always free to do as you like with it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was 
> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license 

What planet do you come from I wonder ?

On Earth (where most of us usually reside) the consensus of the kernel
developers and the legal people they talked to was that GPLv2 to GPLv3
would be very very hard to do if not impossible for the kernel.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Xavier Bestel wrote:
>> That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
>> an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
>> GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
>> combination with code under other licenses.
> 
> You are wrong. Please read e.g.
> 
> (maybe there are better analysis somewhere, but I don't know where).

What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that
the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other
licenses, as long as the files licensed under CDDL keep the license
notice, whereas the GPL requires that derived works also have to be
licensed under the GPL, which is not possible in many cases (such as
this one).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:


On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

Realy can't or don't want (?)
So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
some law ?


Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is
several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of
them. Good luck!


Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was 
allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license 
which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:


And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to
think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)
Why this can't be fixes ?


That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.


CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like 
"CDDL is pseudo-proprietary licence" ? Are you still taking about (and 
only) CDDL ?



I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
moments, and made the right decision.


I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I 
see (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses 
which provides more oppened (and not closed) code.


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Michal Schmidt]

linux-os (Dick Johnson) skrev:
> if you never look at somebody else's'
> implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent.

Oh, it would be a beautiful world in which this was true!

Michal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

> What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that
> the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other

The CDDL is more restrictive in numerous ways, and in the Solaris case
has an obnoxious requirement to use the US joke courts for any legal
decisions (which means the license is I'm pretty sure not even valid in
some parts of the world).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Xavier Bestel]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:06 +0100, Ricardo Correia wrote:
> Alan Cox wrote:
> > The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
> > Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
> > can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
> > other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.
> 
> That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
> an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
> GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
> combination with code under other licenses.

You are wrong. Please read e.g.

(maybe there are better analysis somewhere, but I don't know where).

Xav


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:

> On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:
>>> The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.
>>
>> I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.
>>
>> I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
>> convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
>> compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.
>>
>> I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the
>> Linux devs.
>
> Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
> he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
> the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
> license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
> patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
> not anything Linux developers can help you with.
>
>   - Ted

Copyright law protects an implementation, not a specification. If
there is a specification for a particular file-system, then certainly
one can create a compatible one without violating any copyrights. Patents
protect algorithms and other implementation details. Certainly, there
are at least a hundred ways of performing the same function using
a programming language, and if you never look at somebody else's'
implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent.

So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
the file-system. From the specifications, one writes compatible code.
To protect "IP," you might have to give it a different name than "ZFS,"
but you certain should be able to write code that handles ZFS format
files. The patent (pending) seems to work around the little/big endian
issue. So, there is probably something in a header somewhere that resolves
this --big deal, machines that are incompatible will have to suffer
byte-swapping overhead. There are also 64-bit checksums for some reason.
I guess they have bad hardware and needed a work-around. The 128-bit
file-size follows the, "if a little is good, more must be better..."
logic that became prevalent in industry once sales persons and accountants
took over engineering.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips).
New book: http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_



The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:

> On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
>> So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
>> the file-system.
>
> I didn't know that was that simple, great !
> So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive "we")
>
>   Xav

Well BSD already announced that they ported the file-system. "We" is
not meant to be abusive, simply instructive as in "we the people."

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips).
New book: http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_



The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Xavier Bestel]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
> So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
> the file-system.

I didn't know that was that simple, great !
So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive "we")

Xav


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Diego Calleja]

El Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
escribió:

> Realy can't or don't want (?)

Relicensing the whole kernel under the CDDL just to be able to get ZFS is
not going to happen (I bet that rewriting ZFS is easier than relicensing a
large piece of software with thousand of different copyrigth owners ;)

Either Sun relicenses Solaris under a GPL-compatible license (which may
happen, as Sun's CEO has said they may relicense it under the GPL3), or
Linux won't get ZFS except using the FUSE backend. If you miss ZFS, you
always can use solaris. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

> And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
> licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
> license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to
> think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)
> Why this can't be fixes ?

That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of 
mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back 
to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.

I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code 
with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few 
moments, and made the right decision.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Alan Cox wrote:
> The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
> Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
> can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
> other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
combination with code under other licenses.

The proof of that is that ZFS has already been ported to FreeBSD and
it's being ported to the Mac OS X kernel.

The main problem with ZFS on Linux is that most people consider that the
GPL doesn't allow non-GPL kernel modules.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
> some law ?

Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.

The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Compare it to what the old Sun company did with NFS, which is now a
standard used everywhere.

If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
no other assistance of any kind. Now would be a great time to do that,
but I can't see it happening, instead they'll miss the boat just as
microsoft did with Office XML (three years ago they'd have sailed it
through ISO to the sound of fanfairs)

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:
> > The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.
> 
> I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.
> 
> I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
> convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
> compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.
> 
> I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the  
> Linux devs.

Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
not anything Linux developers can help you with.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:57 +0400
Nikita Danilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

> Ignatich writes:
>  > You might want to look at this discussion:
>  > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-April/027041.html
> 
> Licenses involved cover file system _code_, rather than storage format
> that is openly specified. Just stand up and implement driver for zfs
> format from scratch under whatever license you want. This is exactly how
> Linux supports "foreign" file systems (ntfs, fat, etc.).

That leaves all the patents Sun have filed to prevent anyone doing so.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Erik Mouw]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
> [..]
> >Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
> >he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
> >the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
> >license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
> >patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
> >not anything Linux developers can help you with.
> 
> Realy can't or don't want (?)
> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
> some law ?

All Linux contributors (i.e: copyright owners) are. If you want to
change the kernel license, you have all contributors to agree. Like
somebody else in this thread already said: some of them can't be
reached anymore, some of them are even dead.

For Sun it would be much easier: there might be many contributors to
ZFS, but all of them are employed by Sun and hence Sun owns the
copyright and has the choice of license.

> And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?

A lot. Like an even playing field for all contributors.

> And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was 
> licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under 
> license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try 
> to think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)

The Linux kernel was licensed under GPLv2 way before Sun even thought
about CDDL. You can't blame Linus for choosing a license that was
incompatible with to be written future licenses.

> Why this can't be fixes ?

Because so far we haven't found a way to ask dead copyright owners to
think about relicensing their code. And even if we had, that still
doesn't mean they would actually agree with relicensing their code.

> If in this ponit in Linux "evniroment" can't be chaged .. sorry but is it 
> not kind of hipocritics ?

Nothing hypocritical about it, just undoable.


Erik

-- 
They're all fools. Don't worry. Darwin may be slow, but he'll
eventually get them. -- Matthew Lammers in alt.sysadmin.recovery


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> Realy can't or don't want (?)
> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
> allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
> some law ?

Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is 
several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of 
them. Good luck!

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
[..]

Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
not anything Linux developers can help you with.


Realy can't or don't want (?)
So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
some law ?

And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?
And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was 
licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under 
license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try 
to think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)

Why this can't be fixes ?

If in this ponit in Linux "evniroment" can't be chaged .. sorry but is it 
not kind of hipocritics ?


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David R. Litwin]

On 17/04/07,  Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:


Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is
mostly academic.


Oh?  I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads
of NTFS-3G were end users.(*)

Maybe I was wrong though.  Thanks for the clarification.

The clarification has not been made: As I have said before, I speak only  
of ZFS on FUSE.


--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Miklos Szeredi]

> > FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace -
> > it has its uses.
> 
> Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is  
> mostly academic.

Oh?  I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads
of NTFS-3G were end users.(*)

Maybe I was wrong though.  Thanks for the clarification.

Miklos

(*) Numbers obviously don't include packaged installations
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David R. Litwin]

On 15/04/07,  Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
On 14/04/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

Before I go on, let me appologise. I don't really know what I hope to
accomplish, beyond trying to garner thoughts (and support?) for the  
topic.


Essentially: I want to use Linux and ZFS. I don't particularly care about
licences or any of the rest of that nonsense.


The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.

I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.

I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.

I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the  
Linux devs.



FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace -
it has its uses.


Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is  
mostly academic.



What are the thoughts of the Linux community?

Can't tell you that, all I can tell you is my own oppinion.


You make up a member of the Linux community.


I believe
ZFS for Linux would be interresting, if not for any other reason then
for compatibility.


For the greater glory of Linux? :-)


I'd personally like to see it - but, settle the
license issue first.


And we've come full circle: The liconsinc issue.

--
Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please  http://www.expita.com/nomime.html



--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David R. Litwin]

On 15/04/07,  Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 14/04/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

Before I go on, let me appologise. I don't really know what I hope to
accomplish, beyond trying to garner thoughts (and support?) for the  
topic.


Essentially: I want to use Linux and ZFS. I don't particularly care about
licences or any of the rest of that nonsense.


The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.

I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.

I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.

I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the  
Linux devs.



FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace -
it has its uses.


Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is  
mostly academic.



What are the thoughts of the Linux community?

Can't tell you that, all I can tell you is my own oppinion.


You make up a member of the Linux community.


I believe
ZFS for Linux would be interresting, if not for any other reason then
for compatibility.


For the greater glory of Linux? :-)


I'd personally like to see it - but, settle the
license issue first.


And we've come full circle: The liconsinc issue.

--
Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Don't top-post  http://www.catb.org/~esr/jargon/html/T/top-post.html
Plain text mails only, please  http://www.expita.com/nomime.html



--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Miklos Szeredi]

  FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace -
  it has its uses.
 
 Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is  
 mostly academic.

Oh?  I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads
of NTFS-3G were end users.(*)

Maybe I was wrong though.  Thanks for the clarification.

Miklos

(*) Numbers obviously don't include packaged installations
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David R. Litwin]

On 17/04/07,  Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:


Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is
mostly academic.


Oh?  I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads
of NTFS-3G were end users.(*)

Maybe I was wrong though.  Thanks for the clarification.

The clarification has not been made: As I have said before, I speak only  
of ZFS on FUSE.


--
—A watched bread-crumb never boils.
—My hover-craft is full of eels.
—[...]and that's the he and the she of it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

 And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
 licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
 license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to
 think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?)
 Why this can't be fixes ?

That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of 
mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back 
to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.

I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code 
with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few 
moments, and made the right decision.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Diego Calleja]

El Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] 
escribió:

 Realy can't or don't want (?)

Relicensing the whole kernel under the CDDL just to be able to get ZFS is
not going to happen (I bet that rewriting ZFS is easier than relicensing a
large piece of software with thousand of different copyrigth owners ;)

Either Sun relicenses Solaris under a GPL-compatible license (which may
happen, as Sun's CEO has said they may relicense it under the GPL3), or
Linux won't get ZFS except using the FUSE backend. If you miss ZFS, you
always can use solaris. 
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote:

 On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
 So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
 the file-system.

 I didn't know that was that simple, great !
 So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive we)

   Xav

Well BSD already announced that they ported the file-system. We is
not meant to be abusive, simply instructive as in we the people.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips).
New book: http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_



The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Xavier Bestel]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote:
 So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
 the file-system.

I didn't know that was that simple, great !
So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive we)

Xav


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Xavier Bestel]

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:06 +0100, Ricardo Correia wrote:
 Alan Cox wrote:
  The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
  Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
  can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
  other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.
 
 That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
 an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
 GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
 combination with code under other licenses.

You are wrong. Please read e.g.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
(maybe there are better analysis somewhere, but I don't know where).

Xav


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[linux-os \(Dick Johnson\)]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:

 On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:
 The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.

 I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.

 I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
 convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
 compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.

 I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the
 Linux devs.

 Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
 he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
 the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
 license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
 patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
 not anything Linux developers can help you with.

   - Ted

Copyright law protects an implementation, not a specification. If
there is a specification for a particular file-system, then certainly
one can create a compatible one without violating any copyrights. Patents
protect algorithms and other implementation details. Certainly, there
are at least a hundred ways of performing the same function using
a programming language, and if you never look at somebody else's'
implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent.

So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of
the file-system. From the specifications, one writes compatible code.
To protect IP, you might have to give it a different name than ZFS,
but you certain should be able to write code that handles ZFS format
files. The patent (pending) seems to work around the little/big endian
issue. So, there is probably something in a header somewhere that resolves
this --big deal, machines that are incompatible will have to suffer
byte-swapping overhead. There are also 64-bit checksums for some reason.
I guess they have bad hardware and needed a work-around. The 128-bit
file-size follows the, if a little is good, more must be better...
logic that became prevalent in industry once sales persons and accountants
took over engineering.

Cheers,
Dick Johnson
Penguin : Linux version 2.6.16.24 on an i686 machine (5592.59 BogoMips).
New book: http://www.AbominableFirebug.com/
_



The information transmitted in this message is confidential and may be 
privileged.  Any review, retransmission, dissemination, or other use of this 
information by persons or entities other than the intended recipient is 
prohibited.  If you are not the intended recipient, please notify Analogic 
Corporation immediately - by replying to this message or by sending an email to 
[EMAIL PROTECTED] - and destroy all copies of this information, including any 
attachments, without reading or disclosing them.

Thank you.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

 What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that
 the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other

The CDDL is more restrictive in numerous ways, and in the Solaris case
has an obnoxious requirement to use the US joke courts for any legal
decisions (which means the license is I'm pretty sure not even valid in
some parts of the world).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Michal Schmidt]

linux-os (Dick Johnson) skrev:
 if you never look at somebody else's'
 implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent.

Oh, it would be a beautiful world in which this was true!

Michal
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote:


And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to
think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?)
Why this can't be fixes ?


That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.


CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like 
CDDL is pseudo-proprietary licence ? Are you still taking about (and 
only) CDDL ?



I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
moments, and made the right decision.


I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I 
see (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses 
which provides more oppened (and not closed) code.


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Xavier Bestel wrote:
 That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
 an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
 GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
 combination with code under other licenses.
 
 You are wrong. Please read e.g.
 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLIncompatibleLicenses
 (maybe there are better analysis somewhere, but I don't know where).

What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that
the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other
licenses, as long as the files licensed under CDDL keep the license
notice, whereas the GPL requires that derived works also have to be
licensed under the GPL, which is not possible in many cases (such as
this one).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

 Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was 
 allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license 

What planet do you come from I wonder ?

On Earth (where most of us usually reside) the consensus of the kernel
developers and the legal people they talked to was that GPLv2 to GPLv3
would be very very hard to do if not impossible for the kernel.

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Mike Snitzer]

On 4/17/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
 allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
 some law ?

Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.

The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Compare it to what the old Sun company did with NFS, which is now a
standard used everywhere.

If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
no other assistance of any kind. Now would be a great time to do that,
but I can't see it happening, instead they'll miss the boat just as
microsoft did with Office XML (three years ago they'd have sailed it
through ISO to the sound of fanfairs)


Maybe Ian Murdock could weigh in on this given his new position at Sun. Ian?

BTW, congrats on the new gig...
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[John Anthony Kazos Jr.]

  That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of
  mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back
  to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient.
 
 CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like CDDL
 is pseudo-proprietary licence ? Are you still taking about (and only) CDDL ?

From what I have read, CDDL is treading the vrry thin line between 
an actual Free license and an actual proprietary licence. Just look at the 
nonsense Mozilla Co. has gotten itself worked up about (and judging by how 
much Firefox/Iceweasel crashes on me, being like IE is quite appropriate 
in licencing too). And (if I have not been misinformed), CDDL is inspired 
by Mozilla's licence.

The FSF has something to say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SoftwareLicenses
So yes, CDDL is, to me, pseudo-proprietary, and it would be very easy 
for them to slip up and whoops! Didn't we tell you? You can do everything 
but -that-. But of course it's still free...yeah...

  I'm sure Linus did think very closely about the interaction of his code
  with proprietary licences. He thought about it, snickered for a few
  moments, and made the right decision.
 
 I don't want see problmes on border with propretary licenses at all but I see
 (and still want to talk only about) problem on on some class licenses which
 provides more oppened (and not closed) code.

The GPL is more about protection than openness. Someone can write code, 
throw it on the internet with no licence at all, and it's exactly as 
open as it is under the GPL. You can do anything you want with it in any 
way, just like under the GPL. What the GPL does is protect the code and 
its writer from being snapped up by somebody else, and in any way 
restricted: It makes sure the code STAYS open, and makes sure you are 
always free to do as you like with it.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
 [..]

  Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
  he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
  the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
  license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
  patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
  not anything Linux developers can help you with.

 Realy can't or don't want (?)

As it has been explained to you before it is can't

 So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
 allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
 some law ?

If I've parsed this query correctly the answer is: Linux is licensed under the 
GPL and because a number of people that have contributed code to it can no 
longer agree to a change in the license because they have died this cannot be 
changed. That was explained quite clearly in several mails as well.

 And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?
 And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was
 licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under
 license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try
 to think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?)

When Linux was licensed under the GPL there was only *ONE* real choice for 
licensing it. Linus released the code under the GPL and there it has 
remained, with Linus leading development. If Linux had *NOT* been released 
under the GPL it would not be as popular or as powerful as it is - and that 
is not an opinion but a statement of fact.

 Why this can't be fixes ?

See the previous statement and several previous mails in this thread. Linux is 
licensed under the GPL, it is the *only* license agreed to by everyone that 
has contributed code. If I remember the statistics, there have been something 
like 10,000 different people that have contributed code. Since each 
contributor holds the copyright on their code they are the *ONLY* people that 
could change the license on it. Anyone attempting to change the license 
without agreement from *everyone* that has contributed code to the kernel 
they are in violation of US and international copyright laws.

 If in this ponit in Linux evniroment can't be chaged .. sorry but is it
 not kind of hipocritics ?

Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS code 
cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I 
suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever patches are 
needed to use it? As it stands ZFS *might* show up in Linux as a from-scratch 
implementation, although I stress the might because there are patents 
involved.

DRH

(Now please, drop the subject - IMNSHO it is never going to happen)

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:
  On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
  Realy can't or don't want (?)
  So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
  allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
  some law ?
 
  Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is
  several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of
  them. Good luck!

 Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
 allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license
 which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?

 kloczek

Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the or any later version of this 
license clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux kernel)

DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote:


On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

Realy can't or don't want (?)
So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
some law ?


Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is
several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of
them. Good luck!


Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was 
allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license 
which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Alan Cox wrote:
 The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
 Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
 can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
 other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is
an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the
GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in
combination with code under other licenses.

The proof of that is that ZFS has already been ported to FreeBSD and
it's being ported to the Mac OS X kernel.

The main problem with ZFS on Linux is that most people consider that the
GPL doesn't allow non-GPL kernel modules.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote:
  The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense.
 
 I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed.
 
 I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and
 convince them to release their code under a license that's GPL
 compatible, then we can start looking at a Linux port.
 
 I began by contacting them. One of the devs there told me to contact the  
 Linux devs.

Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
not anything Linux developers can help you with.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:57 +0400
Nikita Danilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:

 Ignatich writes:
   You might want to look at this discussion:
   http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-April/027041.html
 
 Licenses involved cover file system _code_, rather than storage format
 that is openly specified. Just stand up and implement driver for zfs
 format from scratch under whatever license you want. This is exactly how
 Linux supports foreign file systems (ntfs, fat, etc.).

That leaves all the patents Sun have filed to prevent anyone doing so.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Matthew Garrett]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
 Realy can't or don't want (?)
 So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
 allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
 some law ?

Everyone who holds any copyright over any of the code in Linux, which is 
several thousand people. You'd probably need permission from all of 
them. Good luck!

-- 
Matthew Garrett | [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alistair John Strachan]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:48, Alan Cox wrote:
  So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for
  allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking
  some law ?

 Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.

 The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
 Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
 can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
 other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

This isn't universally true. Look at Java, for example, which Sun recently 
released parts of under an open source license -- not the CDDL, not a 
CDDL/xxx dual license, the GPL proper.

Indeed, Sun already have products that are dual licensed CDDL/GPL, for example 
the J2EE product.

 If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
 have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
 docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
 no other assistance of any kind.

I couldn't speculate on the rationale, but it does seem that Sun's choice to 
use _only_ the CDDL with certain software (like ZFS) is deliberate.

-- 
Cheers,
Alistair.

Final year Computer Science undergraduate.
1F2 55 South Clerk Street, Edinburgh, UK.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
[..]

Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
not anything Linux developers can help you with.


Realy can't or don't want (?)
So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
some law ?

And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?
And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was 
licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under 
license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try 
to think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?)

Why this can't be fixes ?

If in this ponit in Linux evniroment can't be chaged .. sorry but is it 
not kind of hipocritics ?


kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Erik Mouw]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote:
 [..]
 Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers.  What
 he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are
 the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL
 license, and more importantly, to give a patent license for any
 patents they may have filed in the course of developing ZFS.  This is
 not anything Linux developers can help you with.
 
 Realy can't or don't want (?)
 So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
 allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
 some law ?

All Linux contributors (i.e: copyright owners) are. If you want to
change the kernel license, you have all contributors to agree. Like
somebody else in this thread already said: some of them can't be
reached anymore, some of them are even dead.

For Sun it would be much easier: there might be many contributors to
ZFS, but all of them are employed by Sun and hence Sun owns the
copyright and has the choice of license.

 And/or what Linux can loose on follow this king changes ?

A lot. Like an even playing field for all contributors.

 And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was 
 licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under 
 license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try 
 to think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?)

The Linux kernel was licensed under GPLv2 way before Sun even thought
about CDDL. You can't blame Linus for choosing a license that was
incompatible with to be written future licenses.

 Why this can't be fixes ?

Because so far we haven't found a way to ask dead copyright owners to
think about relicensing their code. And even if we had, that still
doesn't mean they would actually agree with relicensing their code.

 If in this ponit in Linux evniroment can't be chaged .. sorry but is it 
 not kind of hipocritics ?

Nothing hypocritical about it, just undoable.


Erik

-- 
They're all fools. Don't worry. Darwin may be slow, but he'll
eventually get them. -- Matthew Lammers in alt.sysadmin.recovery


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Alan Cox]

 So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for 
 allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking 
 some law ?

Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen.

The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but
Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they
can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with
other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Compare it to what the old Sun company did with NFS, which is now a
standard used everywhere.

If Sun want ZFS to get used all over the place in free software then I'd
have expected at the very least to see them throw out a copy of the code,
docs and patent grant in a form that could be used, even if it came with
no other assistance of any kind. Now would be a great time to do that,
but I can't see it happening, instead they'll miss the boat just as
microsoft did with Office XML (three years ago they'd have sailed it
through ISO to the sound of fanfairs)

Alan
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:22:19PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
 Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS 
 code 
 cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I 
 suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever patches are 
 needed to use it? As it stands ZFS *might* show up in Linux as a from-scratch 
 implementation, although I stress the might because there are patents 
 involved.

Given that Sun has reportedly filed a huge number of patents covering
ZFS and has refused to make them available for anything other than
Solaris --- and there are senior Sun programmers who have on record
stated that one of the reasons why Sun picked the CDDL was precisely
because it was incompatible with GPL and Sun fears Linux  I
wouldn't bet on Sun being willing to making a patent license available
to a hypothetical alternate implementation of the ZFS format for
Linux.

Again, this is is Sun's fault, and it's because they fear Linux, and
it may have something to do with the fact that the vast majority of
their Opteron boxes get Linux installed instead of Solaris.  The
bottom line is that people who would like ZFS need to understand that
the code is Copyright by Sun, and there are almost certainly patents
owned by Sun, and if they choose licenses that are explicitly designed
to be incompatible with Linux, we should respect Sun's deep-seated
fear of Linux, and we can continue trying to innovate around better
filesystem and LVM storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase
the ZFS tail lights.

Of course, this is all open source.  If someone wants to work on
reimplementing ZFS from scratch, either in userspace or in the kernel,
certainly the Linux community won't stop them.  Given the patent
issues Linus might not feel comfortable including it in the mainline
sources without a promise from Sun that they won't sue the pants off
of him and The Linux Foundation, but again, that's Sun's decision, and
no one else can help you there.

- Ted
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Florian Weimer]

* Theodore Tso:

 we can continue trying to innovate around better filesystem and LVM
 storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase the ZFS tail
 lights.

Indeed.  Here's a gem from the official ZFS FAQ:

| What can I do if ZFS panics on every boot?
| 
| ZFS is designed to survive arbitrary hardware failures through the
| use of redundancy (mirroring or RAID-Z). Unfortunately, certain
| failures in non-replicated configurations can cause ZFS to panic
| when trying to load the pool. This is a bug, and will be fixed in
| the near future (along with several other nifty features like
| background scrubbing and the ability to see a list of corrupted
| files). In the meantime, if you find yourself in the situation
| where you cannot boot due to a corrupt pool, do the followng:
| 
|1. boot using '-m milestone=none'
|2. # mount -o remount /
|3. # rm /etc/zfs/zpool.cache
|4. # reboot
| 
| This will remove all knowledge of pools from your system. You will
| have to re-create your pool and restore from backup.

http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#zfspanic

I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that
page is rather current. 8-/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Florian Weimer wrote:
 http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#zfspanic
 
 I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that
 page is rather current. 8-/

That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on
non-replicated pools for a long time already.

Background scrubbing and the ability to see a list of corrupted files
has also been available for a long time (even longer than the above).

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]

Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license
which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ?

kloczek


Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the or any later version of this
license clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux kernel)


So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start 
work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good 
to know :o)
How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be 
good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in 
rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it 
is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will 
take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says 
something like Linux is in GPL cage.


Hmm .. transforming KProbes/systemtap to someting useable as DTrace was 
started more than two years ago and I don't see end of base work (sill on 
start). Make ALSA so useable as OSS it was next three trashed years 
(because some developers stays on position mixing audio in kernel space 
is dangerous) and also not finished in many points. LVM still isnt't 
Veritas. I don't see OpenVZ to tries be so useable and easy for managa as 
Solaris zoning (why OpenVZ people can't use the same commands syntax for 
manage zones as under Solaris .. command syntax is not patented :). Also 
.. moment .. moment .. for what I'm waiting if I can install and use 
Solaris/*BSD/MOX *NOW* ??? Why still contribute any code to project which 
seems must die ? (Is is realy true that some beeings which can't evolve in 
changeing enviroment will not survive .. ?)


EOT .. sorry

kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Ricardo Correia]

Ricardo Correia wrote:
 That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on
 non-replicated pools for a long time already.

Just a clarification, ZFS not only detects metadata corruption through
the use of checksums but, since it keeps 2-3 copies of each metadata
block on-disk (even on non-replicated pools), it also rewrites the
corrupted blocks, effectively repairing the corruption.

All of this is done transparently to the user but, of course, it's
possible to see a report of checksum failures.

-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
 [..]

  Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
  allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another
  license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
  argument ?
 
  kloczek
 
  Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the or any later version of
  this license clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux
  kernel)

 So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start
 work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good
 to know :o)

Nope. Note that I said Except the Linux Kernel.

After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of 
the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL other 
than the current one applied. This change might have occurred without the 
knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but since it was 
done with the complete agreement of all the current developers - and assumed 
agreement of any who contributed and are no longer able to consent (since 
their code was originally released under GPLv2) - it should stand. After all, 
the form of the license that applies to the kernel is shipped with the 
kernels sources.

In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
 NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
 services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
 of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
 Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
 Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
 kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

Linus Torvalds
-

So the Linux kernel, unless things change some years in the future, will never 
have a license completely compatible with the CDDL. (and the CDDL isn't 
really a Free Software license in the GPL vein because it makes demands 
such as retention of the header blocks and reserves Sun (or whoever is 
releasing code under the CDDL) the right to revoke the implicit patent grant 
the license offers.)

 How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
 good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in
 rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it
 is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will
 take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
 something like Linux is in GPL cage.

Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit inside 
the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be open source 
under a license that makes demands like those of the user.

DRH
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Roland Dreier]

  After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of 
  the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

This is not accurate.  As far back as I can easily check, the kernel's
COPYING file has said:

 Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
 is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
 v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

To be really precise, there was a trivial rewording of this sometime
around Feb 2002 to make it clearer, but the point is that the kernel
has been GPL v2 only long before the GPL v3 process started.

 - R.
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[David Lang]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:



On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
[..]


Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was
allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another
license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
argument ?

kloczek


Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the or any later version of
this license clause (except, now, the version being used with the Linux
kernel)


So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to start
work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux .. good
to know :o)


Nope. Note that I said Except the Linux Kernel.

After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of
the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2


actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years

there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only


So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL other
than the current one applied. This change might have occurred without the
knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but since it was
done with the complete agreement of all the current developers - and assumed
agreement of any who contributed and are no longer able to consent (since
their code was originally released under GPLv2) - it should stand. After all,
the form of the license that applies to the kernel is shipped with the
kernels sources.


the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb that 
the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can retroactivly change 
the license of the code that other people create.


The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the benifit or 
detriment of the people who created the code.



In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.

Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.

   Linus Torvalds
-


take a look at the date that this went into the kernel


How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive in
rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now* it
is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing will
take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
something like Linux is in GPL cage.


Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit inside
the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be open source
under a license that makes demands like those of the user.


and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets other 
people change the terms years later.


David Lang

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Daniel Hazelton]

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote:
 On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
  On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
  On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote:
  [..]
 
  Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument
  was allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another
  license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr
  argument ?
 
  kloczek
 
  Because *EVERY* version of the GPL contains the or any later version
  of this license clause (except, now, the version being used with the
  Linux kernel)
 
  So after around commented swiching to GPL v3 it will be possible to
  start work on GLP v3.5 which will allow easy reuse CDDL code under Linux
  .. good to know :o)
 
  Nope. Note that I said Except the Linux Kernel.
 
  After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release
  of the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2

 actually the GPLv2 only predates the GPLv3 draft by several years

 there are quite a few other projects that are also GPLv2 only

  So the Linux kernel will *never* be able to have a version of the GPL
  other than the current one applied. This change might have occurred
  without the knowledge or agreement of the FSF, who maintain the GPL, but
  since it was done with the complete agreement of all the current
  developers - and assumed agreement of any who contributed and are no
  longer able to consent (since their code was originally released under
  GPLv2) - it should stand. After all, the form of the license that applies
  to the kernel is shipped with the kernels sources.

 the 'or later' version is not part of the GPLv2 license itself, it's a burb
 that the FSF suggests that people use so that they (the FSF) can
 retroactivly change the license of the code that other people create.

 The dispute over the GPLv3 is if these retroactive chagnes aer to the
 benifit or detriment of the people who created the code.

  In fact, from the copy in the latest Git:
  NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel
  services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use
  of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of derived work.
  Also note that the GPL below is copyrighted by the Free Software
  Foundation, but the instance of code that it refers to (the Linux
  kernel) is copyrighted by me and others who actually wrote it.
 
  Also note that the only valid version of the GPL as far as the kernel
  is concerned is _this_ particular version of the license (ie v2, not
  v2.2 or v3.x or whatever), unless explicitly otherwise stated.
 
 Linus Torvalds
  -

 take a look at the date that this went into the kernel

Yeah, I did afterwards. Perhaps it was because of the discussion that occurred 
then that I remember it.

  How many years it will take ? two, three ? more ? (it will be
  good to know how long we must wait on ZFS under Linux .. I don't belive
  in rewriting ZFS code time and make it so useable on production as *now*
  it is possible under Solaris/*BSD/MOX and passing all pointless arguing
  will take shorter time) .. or maybe never because some people says
  something like Linux is in GPL cage.
 
  Linux is not in any cage - Solaris and ZFS, because of the CDDL, sit
  inside the cage. I, personally, will *NEVER* release code meant to be
  open source under a license that makes demands like those of the user.

 and similarly, many people will not release code under a license that lets
 other people change the terms years later.

Agreed. This is something that I would never do. 

DRH


 David Lang


-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: Repair-driven file system design (was Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea)

[David Chinner]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:34:42PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> > On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
> >
> > > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach.
> > 
> > Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem.
> 
> Agreed, the chunkfs design is only one way to implement repair-driven
> file system design - designing your file system to make file system
> check and repair fast and easy.  I've written a paper on this idea,
> which includes some interesting projections estimating that fsck will
> take 10 times as long on the 2013 equivalent of a 2006 file system,
> due entirely to changes in disk hardware.

That's assuming that repair doesn't get any more efficient. ;)

> So if your server currently
> takes 2 hours to fsck, an equivalent server in 2013 will take about 20
> hours.  Eek!  Paper here:
> 
> http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/review/repair.pdf
> 
> While I'm working on chunkfs, I also think that all file systems
> should strive for repair-driven design.  XFS has already made big
> strides in this area (multi-threading fsck for multi-disk file
> systems, for example) and I'm excited to see what comes next.

Two steps forward, one step back.

We found that our original approach to multithreading doesn't always
work, and doesn't work at all for single disks. Under some test cases,
it goes *much* slower due to increased seeking of the disks.

This patch from the folk at Agami:

http://oss.sgi.com/archives/xfs/2007-01/msg00135.html

used a different threading approach to speeding up the repair
process - it basically did object path walking in separate threads
to prime the block device page cache so that when the real
repair thread needed the block it came from the blockdev cache
rather than from disk.

This sped up several phases of the repair process because of
re-reads needed in the different phases. What we found interesting
about this approach is that it showed that prefetching gave as good
or better results than simple parallelisation with a rudimentary
caching system. In most cases it was superior (lower runtime) to
the existing multithreaded xfs_repair.

However, the Agami object based prefetch does not speed up phase 3
on a single disk - like strided AG parallelism it increases disk
seeks and, as we discovered, causes lots of little backwards seeks
to occur. It also performs very poorly when there is not enough
memory to cache sufficient objects in the block dev cache (whose
size cannot be controlled). It sped things up by using prefetch to
speed up (repeated) I/O, not by using intelligent caching.

However, this patch has been very instructive on how we could
further improve the threading of xfs_repair - intelligent prefetch
is better than simple parallelism (from the Agami patch), caching is
far better than rereading (from the SGI repair level caching) and
that prefetching complements simple parallelism on volumes that can
take advantage of it.

We've ended up combining a threaded, two phase object walking
prefetch with spatial analysis of the inode and object layouts
and integration into a smarter internal cache. This cache is now
similar to the xfs_buf cache in the kernel and uses direct I/O
so if you have enough memory you only need to read objects from
disk once.

Spatial analysis of the metadata is used to determine the relative
density of the metadata in an area of disk before we read it. Using
a density function, we determine if we want to do lots of small I/Os
or one large I/O to read the entire region in one go and then split
it up in memory. Hence as metadata density increases, the number of
I/Os decrease and we pull enough data in to (hopefully) keep the
CPUs busy.

We still walk objects, but any blocks behind where we are currently
reading go into a secondary I/O queue to be issued later. Hence we
keep moving in one direction across the disk. Once the first pass is
complete, we then do the same analysis on the secondary list and run
that I/O all in a single pass across the disk.

This is effectively a result of observing that repair is typically seek
bound and only using 2-3MB/s of the bandwidth a disk has to offer.
Where metadata density is high, we are now seeing luns max out on
bandwidth rather than being seek bound. Effectively we are hiding
latency by using more bandwidth and that is a good tradeoff to
make for a seek bound app

The result of this is that even on single disks the reading of all
the metadata goes faster with this multithreaded prefetch model.  A
full 250GB SATA disk with a clean filesystem containing ~1.6 million
inodes is now taking less than 5 minutes to repair. A 5.5TB RAID5
volume with 30 million inodes is now taking about 4.5 minutes to
repair instead of 20 minutes. We're currently creating a
multi-hundred million inode filesystem to determine scalability to
the current bleeding edge.

One thing this makes me consider is 

Repair-driven file system design (was Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea)

[Valerie Henson]

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote:
> On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote:
>
> > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach.
> 
> Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem.

Agreed, the chunkfs design is only one way to implement repair-driven
file system design - designing your file system to make file system
check and repair fast and easy.  I've written a paper on this idea,
which includes some interesting projections estimating that fsck will
take 10 times as long on the 2013 equivalent of a 2006 file system,
due entirely to changes in disk hardware.  So if your server currently
takes 2 hours to fsck, an equivalent server in 2013 will take about 20
hours.  Eek!  Paper here:

http://infohost.nmt.edu/~val/review/repair.pdf

While I'm working on chunkfs, I also think that all file systems
should strive for repair-driven design.  XFS has already made big
strides in this area (multi-threading fsck for multi-disk file
systems, for example) and I'm excited to see what comes next.

-VAL
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> Unfortunatelle Latency is critical for a number of critical applications
>> like databases or file based transaction systems (mail, news) - mainly the
>> users of fsync().
> 
> Whether you mix audio in userspace or kernel does not impact latency -
> you still need to schedule the application playing audio every N
> milliseconds or there will be dropouts.  I don't see where audio
> mixing issue has any relevance to this thread.

Well, I was not talking about Audio - I was saying that there are a class of
applications which need low latency on commits (fsync or rename).

And for the audio mixer, the problem is that you have multiple reschedules
and data ping pong if you do user mode mixing - i guess.

Anyway.. not important. I still think filesystem servers can be a good
thing. And I really hope we will find some interesting numbers on ZFS
advantages...

Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Tomasz Kłoczko]

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Diego Calleja wrote:


El Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:46:50 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 
escribió:


also some other interestig numbers can be founnd on:
http://milek.blogspot.com/2006/08/hw-raid-vs-zfs-software-raid-part-ii.html


So software raid can be faster than HW raid. News at 11.


Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced 
RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 
with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some 
bigger box ;). This small iron box have inside RAID controller (Dell uses 
in this box LSI Logic SAS MegaRAID based ctrl). Anykind combinations on 
controler level RAID was slower than using this as plain JBOD with LVM or 
MD+LVM. Diffrence between HW and soft RAID was not so big (1-6% depending 
on configuration) but allways HW produces worser results (don't ask me 
why). Finaly I decide using this disk as four RAID1 luns only because 
under Linux I can't read each phisical disk SMART data and protecting this 
by RAID on controller level and collecting SNMP traps from DRAC card was 
kind of worakaround for this (in my case it will be better constanlty 
monitor disk healt and collesting some SMART data for observe trends on 
for example zabbix graphs for try predict some faults using triggers). On 
top of this was configured diffrent types of volumes on LVM level (some 
with stripping some without, some with bigger some with smaller chunk 
size).


But .. in case ZFS diffrences can be better visable.
Q: why ?
A: because most of HW RAID controlers (nevermind is it small/simple 
internal HW controler for DAS sotorage or advances in storage processor in 
dedicated FC array) are _optimized_ for classic FS workloads but .. ZFS 
uses bunch of devices in completly diffrent way/characteristics. If you 
will see flashing LEDs on box with disk first time configurad for classic 
RAID (nevermind soft or hw) and on second time configured for 
ZFS you will see kind of organoleptic diffrence.

And yes .. ZFS may be kind of problem for some HW vendors ;)

kloczek
--
---
*Ludzie nie mają problemów, tylko sobie sami je stwarzają*
---
Tomasz Kłoczko, sys adm @zie.pg.gda.pl|*e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Stefan Richter]

Bernd Eckenfels wrote:
> In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
>> I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of
>> audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of
>> latencies;
[...]
>> You were talking about throughput of storage systems, for which latencies
>> of the software part of the stack do not play such a central role.
[...]
> Unfortunatelle Latency is critical for a number of critical applications
> like databases or file based transaction systems (mail, news) - mainly the
> users of fsync().

Yes, I know that; and there may even be mass storage systems with actual
realtime requirements.  Note though that latencies in FUSE-based
filesystems due to (what do I know) context switches and possibly CPU
scheduling latencies are not necessarily relevant to the overall
latencies in applications which you mentioned.

Anyway, that's not at all what the original poster alluded to when he
made vague statements about FUSE vs. kernelspace filesystems, finishing
in the odd comparison with ALSA.

(Please try not to delete Ccs.)
-- 
Stefan Richter
-=-=-=== -=-- =
http://arcgraph.de/sr/
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Jörn Engel]

On Mon, 16 April 2007 17:46:50 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote:
> 
> >Numbers, please.  So far in all interesting benchmarks it actually
> >was slower.  But when they're faster than XFS somewhere I'd defintly
> >be interesting in looking at why this is true and if possible and
> >important enough fix it.

Christoph, could you show some numbers as well?  While I usually trust
your opinion, I have yet to see any substantial argument against ZFS
from your side.

> http://cmynhier.blogspot.com/2006/05/zfs-io-reordering-benchmark.html

http://blogs.sun.com/bill/#zfs_vs_the_benchmark

If you read closely you may notice that ZFS had relatively little to do
with read performance under heavy write load.  ZFS simply has "some fancy
I/O scheduling code" that in particular deals with deadlines.  The Linux
equivalent appears to be CONFIG_IOSCHED_DEADLINE.  But the quoted
benchmark does not mention which scheduler was used for Linux.

So unless the benchmark is redone and properly documented, its numbers
are fairly worthless.  Bummer.

> http://cmynhier.blogspot.com/2006/05/zfs-benchmarking.html

"The company I work for would probably balk if I put that script here"

No publically available benchmark.  So even if a third party wanted to,
it couldn't recreate the benchmark.  Again, fairly worthless.


So by my count, neither side has showed any worthwile numbers.  Whether
ZFS performance is better or worse is anyone's guess.

Jörn

-- 
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability.
-- Edsger W. Dijkstra
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Lee Revell]

On 4/16/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of
> audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of
> latencies; and that's exactly the major point where I heard that there
> are problems with ALSA driver components in userspace.  You were talking
> about throughput of storage systems, for which latencies of the software
> part of the stack do not play such a central role.  Therefore your
> comparison appeared off the mark to me.

Unfortunatelle Latency is critical for a number of critical applications
like databases or file based transaction systems (mail, news) - mainly the
users of fsync().


Whether you mix audio in userspace or kernel does not impact latency -
you still need to schedule the application playing audio every N
milliseconds or there will be dropouts.  I don't see where audio
mixing issue has any relevance to this thread.

Lee
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

[Bernd Eckenfels]

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote:
> I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of
> audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of
> latencies; and that's exactly the major point where I heard that there
> are problems with ALSA driver components in userspace.  You were talking
> about throughput of storage systems, for which latencies of the software
> part of the stack do not play such a central role.  Therefore your
> comparison appeared off the mark to me.

Unfortunatelle Latency is critical for a number of critical applications
like databases or file based transaction systems (mail, news) - mainly the
users of fsync().

Gruss
Bernd
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/