Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Mon, Jan 12 at 10:00, casper@sun.com wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a significant effort from Sun. Why is that a problem for Windows? Linux, yes, but if they want they can change that. Who is they ? It's not a problem, it just is-what-it-is. The significant effort I am referring to is changes to the licensing, which is a tricky endeavour as soon as you have contributors instead of a contributor. Doesn't really matter who changes, or really if anyone changes at all. --eric -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Roch Bourbonnais wrote: Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:39, Carson Gaspar a écrit : Joerg Schilling wrote: Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) And for SDXC, ZFS will probably never be the filesystem of choice. Removable media of this type is mostly used in portable electronic devices, such as cameras, cellphones, etc. All of which are power, CPU, and memory limited. ZFS, while a marvelous filesystem, is incredibly RAM hungry. I suspect it's CPU profile is also non-trivial for a restricted performance device. I have not looked at it recently but for any access greater than ~ 16K ZFS was more efficient than UFS. It's just one partial data point but the conventional wisdom that ZFS will use more cpu is not an absolute truth. Even more so for RAM, ZFS with 128K record make efficient use of metadata. The only ram it needs to operation is 10 seconds of of your workload's throughput and that can be tuned down in appliances. DOS/FAT filesystem implementations in appliances can be found in less than 8K code and data size (mostly that's code). Limited functionality implementations can be smaller than 1kB size. -- Andrew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On 14 Jan 2009, at 10:01, Andrew Gabriel wrote: DOS/FAT filesystem implementations in appliances can be found in less than 8K code and data size (mostly that's code). Limited functionality implementations can be smaller than 1kB size. Just for the sake of comparison, how big is the limited ZFS implementation in grub? Cheers, Chris ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Le 12 janv. 09 à 17:39, Carson Gaspar a écrit : Joerg Schilling wrote: Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) And for SDXC, ZFS will probably never be the filesystem of choice. Removable media of this type is mostly used in portable electronic devices, such as cameras, cellphones, etc. All of which are power, CPU, and memory limited. ZFS, while a marvelous filesystem, is incredibly RAM hungry. I suspect it's CPU profile is also non-trivial for a restricted performance device. I have not looked at it recently but for any access greater than ~ 16K ZFS was more efficient than UFS. It's just one partial data point but the conventional wisdom that ZFS will use more cpu is not an absolute truth. Even more so for RAM, ZFS with 128K record make efficient use of metadata. The only ram it needs to operation is 10 seconds of of your workload's throughput and that can be tuned down in appliances. -r Now it _might_ be possible for some of these characteristics to be changed with a code re-write targeting small devices, and probably a feature-limited zpool/zfs version number, but the effort would be non-trivial. -- Carson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a significant effort from Sun. Why is that a problem for Windows? Linux, yes, but if they want they can change that. Casper ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Eric D. Mudama edmud...@bounceswoosh.org wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. The BDF folks had some cons against the CDDL but after I had a lobger discussion with them, they understood that the CDDL does not hurt them as long as the CDDL is not used for essential siftware core software that cannot be replaced. If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a significant effort from Sun. The problem is not the CDDL but the way ZFS and the CDDL is discussed in the Linux camp. Even a GPLd ZFS would not change things for Linux A GPLd ZFS would however disallow to use it on *BSD and Mac OS X. Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) Jörg -- EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni) joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog: http://schily.blogspot.com/ URL: http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Joerg Schilling wrote: Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) And for SDXC, ZFS will probably never be the filesystem of choice. Removable media of this type is mostly used in portable electronic devices, such as cameras, cellphones, etc. All of which are power, CPU, and memory limited. ZFS, while a marvelous filesystem, is incredibly RAM hungry. I suspect it's CPU profile is also non-trivial for a restricted performance device. Now it _might_ be possible for some of these characteristics to be changed with a code re-write targeting small devices, and probably a feature-limited zpool/zfs version number, but the effort would be non-trivial. -- Carson ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
tt == Toby Thain t...@telegraphics.com.au writes: j == JZ j...@excelsioritsolutions.com writes: Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. tt a lot of seasoned sysadmins would disagree. Gentoo makes sense for embedded projects. OpenWRT is arguably source-based too. but Gentoo is extremely clumsy to my view: I find USE flags to be a terrible mistake because they hide bugs and make dependencies no longer automatic. It would be a lot more workable if I had bootable ZFS snapshots in Gentoo to give rollback protection when doing security-fix updates. Also I think they don't do enough (any?) branching for stable systems---they sort of think they can have ``stable'' and ``experimental'' branches both continually updated, with no tagging, all the time, which makes all updates equally risky instead of batching things into major-infrequent and minor-frequent updates. In that sense I guess it's just like opensolaris. but yeah, that OTness aside, Sun's deliberately crafting their brand new CDDL license to be incompatible with the GPL isn't exactly in the spirit of free software. BSD is also not in the GPL camp, but the mainstream of BSD has altered their licenses where possible to add GPL compatibility. The GPL camp moves in the same direction: the GPLv3 added changes to slightly improve license compatibility. That said I don't really understand why ZFS can't be a Linux kernel module, since Linus's ``interpretation'' of the GPL has almost reduced it to LGPL within the kernel. Why his ``interpretation'' should have such weight when he doesn't hold all the copyrights I've never understood either, but so far all these big companies distributing binary modules seem to take it as law. This thread seems to say the same: http://groups.google.com/group/zfs-fuse/browse_thread/thread/1219db6af605f792 so, maybe it is not really a license permissiveness issue, so much as a license preference issue that you cannot convince very many talented Linux developers to do free work for you unless you give their efforts the protection of the GPL. The one willing to work without GPL protection only offers enough free time to do the easier FUSE port. :) j I like you open folks, much much more than the L-open folks. (1) don't confuse the people with the license. In general I get along better with BSD users, but not their license---I prefer GPL, as user and developer. (2) lots of the people here are Sol10 users, of the stable release. those people are not ``open folks'' at all. (3) http://www.openbsd.org/papers/opencon06-drivers/mgp00024.html it's all about the details. pgpJJ1u3TCH1P.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
js == Joerg Schilling joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de writes: js A GPLd ZFS would however disallow to use it on *BSD and Mac OS js X. and also Solaris. which is why ZFS would not be GPL'd that way. It'd be a choice of license. I think someone floated the same either/or license as a ``we'll see'' possibility for the Java source release. What would happen next is that any improvements Linux developers made might be GPL-only, because they'd have the right to do that. In the case of the atheros code they share with BSD, they supposedly agreed to dual-either/or-license their improvements, but they don't have to, and they can change their minds. If they didn't, and Linux got a lively ZFS community, then there'd either be huge duplication of effort or ZFS in Solaris would fall behind to the point that Linux would become the definitive release. I agree that's far from ideal. But Linux developers have the absolute right to decide how they want to spend their time, and I don't agree they're being irrational by preferring to work on btrfs than under the CDDL. I do agree that their _choice_ isn't a ``problem,'' but I wouldn't stonewall while holding my breath waiting for them to suddenly change their minds, either. pgpR4OG7SAEGA.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Carson Gaspar wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) And for SDXC, ZFS will probably never be the filesystem of choice. Removable media of this type is mostly used in portable electronic devices, such as cameras, cellphones, etc. All of which are power, CPU, and memory limited. ZFS, while a marvelous filesystem, is incredibly RAM hungry. I suspect it's CPU profile is also non-trivial for a restricted performance device. I'm not sure this is a huge hurdle. There already is a reduced-functionality ZFS implementation in grub, which is quite small. Remember, most of the extreme performance features of ZFS would not necessarily be needed in an embedded system. -- richard ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Richard Elling wrote: Carson Gaspar wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: Fabian Wörner fabian.woer...@googlemail.com wrote: my post was not to start a discuss gplcddl. It just an idea to promote ZFS and OPENSOLARIS If it was against anything than against exfat, nothing else!!! If you like to promoote ZFS, you need to understand why the party you like to promote it to does not already use it ;-) And for SDXC, ZFS will probably never be the filesystem of choice. Removable media of this type is mostly used in portable electronic devices, such as cameras, cellphones, etc. All of which are power, CPU, and memory limited. ZFS, while a marvelous filesystem, is incredibly RAM hungry. I suspect it's CPU profile is also non-trivial for a restricted performance device. I'm not sure this is a huge hurdle. There already is a reduced-functionality ZFS implementation in grub, which is quite small. Remember, most of the extreme performance features of ZFS would not necessarily be needed in an embedded system. Well, it would be really nice if an open filesystem was adopted on such devices. I'm guessing, but I would suspect exFAT (a.k.a. FAT64) which is the only current contender, isn't open. -- Andrew ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Mon, 12 Jan 2009, Miles Nordin wrote: but yeah, that OTness aside, Sun's deliberately crafting their brand new CDDL license to be incompatible with the GPL isn't exactly in the spirit of free software. BSD is also not in the GPL camp, but the mainstream of BSD has altered their licenses where possible to add GPL compatibility. The GPL camp moves in the same direction: the GPLv3 added changes to slightly improve license compatibility. After all these years, I am still not sure what is meant by free software. For 99.999% of humanity, free means that they don't have to pay for it. For GPL free does not pertain to its use by humans at all. Instead free for GPL is about preventing the enslavement of the source code itself (enslavement means distribution of binaries without source code), as if the source code was a living breathing creature. Due to the ambiguity now associated with the free, I will prefer the term open source and use some other term besides free to describe any encumberances caused by the license. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
[zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Wouldn't it be great if the opensolaris community creates a fs fzfs (for flash zfs) that could be the the filesystem for SDXC cards? Two main point for this are already there Sun is a member of SD Card Association and the code writting smart on a flash should be there as well with stuff of l2arc. I think that could give the opensolaris a more visiblie/ markting in the IT space and would bring zfs support to even more OSes. Please correct me if I am wrong with anything? Thanks for reading, f. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Sun, Jan 11 at 5:00, Fabian Wörner wrote: Wouldn't it be great if the opensolaris community creates a fs fzfs (for flash zfs) that could be the the filesystem for SDXC cards? Two main point for this are already there Sun is a member of SD Card Association and the code writting smart on a flash should be there as well with stuff of l2arc. I think that could give the opensolaris a more visiblie/ markting in the IT space and would bring zfs support to even more OSes. Please correct me if I am wrong with anything? Thanks for reading, f. My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. If you wanted native support in Windows or Linux, it would require a significant effort from Sun. -- Eric D. Mudama edmud...@mail.bounceswoosh.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. Perhaps the philosophical issues of the other OS's (i.e. Linux) are more significant than the actual licensing issues. Many/most Linux users could legally use a native optimized kernel implementation of Sun ZFS if it was offered to them to do so. GPLv2 only adds restrictions when copying binaries. A pure source based distribution like Gentoo has hardly any issues at all. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. Perhaps the philosophical issues of the other OS's (i.e. Linux) are more significant than the actual licensing issues. Many/most Linux users could legally use a native optimized kernel implementation of Sun ZFS if it was offered to them to do so. GPLv2 only adds restrictions when copying binaries. A pure source based distribution like Gentoo has hardly any issues at all. Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. If you want it in Linux then it has to be a proper GPL compliant effort. I for one would like this to happen. Tom ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:36 + Tom Bird t...@marmot.org.uk wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. Perhaps the philosophical issues of the other OS's (i.e. Linux) are more significant than the actual licensing issues. Many/most Linux users could legally use a native optimized kernel implementation of Sun ZFS if it was offered to them to do so. GPLv2 only adds restrictions when copying binaries. A pure source based distribution like Gentoo has hardly any issues at all. Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. Based on ...? If you want it in Linux then it has to be a proper GPL compliant effort. Why should we want it in linux? It may be that one day linux wants it in linux ;-) I for one would like this to happen. GPL sucks. At least, that's my opinion. GPL dominion sucks even bigger. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv104 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
yeah, this is ZFS turf. what Linux folks really care may not be what z-open folks really care... open folks are not just all in one camp. I like you open folks, much much more than the L-open folks. best, z - Original Message - From: dick hoogendijk d...@nagual.nl To: zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2009 3:47 PM Subject: Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 20:28:36 + Tom Bird t...@marmot.org.uk wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. Perhaps the philosophical issues of the other OS's (i.e. Linux) are more significant than the actual licensing issues. Many/most Linux users could legally use a native optimized kernel implementation of Sun ZFS if it was offered to them to do so. GPLv2 only adds restrictions when copying binaries. A pure source based distribution like Gentoo has hardly any issues at all. Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. Based on ...? If you want it in Linux then it has to be a proper GPL compliant effort. Why should we want it in linux? It may be that one day linux wants it in linux ;-) I for one would like this to happen. GPL sucks. At least, that's my opinion. GPL dominion sucks even bigger. -- Dick Hoogendijk -- PGP/GnuPG key: 01D2433D + http://nagual.nl/ | SunOS sxce snv104 ++ + All that's really worth doing is what we do for others (Lewis Carrol) ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On 11-Jan-09, at 3:28 PM, Tom Bird wrote: Bob Friesenhahn wrote: On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Eric D. Mudama wrote: My impression is not that other OS's aren't interested in ZFS, they are, it's that the licensing restrictions limit native support to Solaris, BSD, and OS-X. Perhaps the philosophical issues of the other OS's (i.e. Linux) are more significant than the actual licensing issues. Many/most Linux users could legally use a native optimized kernel implementation of Sun ZFS if it was offered to them to do so. GPLv2 only adds restrictions when copying binaries. A pure source based distribution like Gentoo has hardly any issues at all. Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. Hmmm... a lot of seasoned sysadmins would disagree. A source based distribution has some significant advantages; I would not be surprised if that concept outlives binary packaging and its attendant dependency hell. --Toby If you want it in Linux then it has to be a proper GPL compliant effort. I for one would like this to happen. Tom ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
Re: [zfs-discuss] SDXC and the future of ZFS
On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Toby Thain wrote: Nobody in their right mind is using Gentoo. Hmmm... a lot of seasoned sysadmins would disagree. A source based distribution has some significant advantages; I would not be surprised if that concept outlives binary packaging and its attendant dependency hell. I had Gentoo here and have lived to tell the tale. It would be a tall tale indeed if I was to claim to have recieved some sort of scars or undue stress from the experience, or even significant discomfort. The main issue was with burning CPU building new versions of software, but that is much less of an issue now. I do not claim to be in right mind without someone paying me money to do so. Regardless, I am not aware of anything preventing someone from creating a distributable source patch to insert ZFS into the Linux kernel, as long as the end user builds and installs their own kernel. While it may be difficult for some Linux users to understand, the source code is actually available for the Linux kernel. Bob == Bob Friesenhahn bfrie...@simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/ GraphicsMagick Maintainer,http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/ ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
