Re: Btrfs development plans
/* Catching up on email */ On Tue, 21 Apr 2009 12:27:39 pm Eric Anopolsky wrote: In case anyone is interested, ZFS already has been ported to Linux as a FUSE module. A very talented GSoC participant did the port as his project. A GSoC student who got employed by Cluster Filesystems to do work on Lustre, which then got acquired by Sun, who will (all things being equal) now be acquired by Oracle. :-) ZFS/FUSE is useful (I use it as an rsync destination for various filesystems that I then snapshot) but it's still got a long way to go and from what I last saw it's pretty much unmaintained now. cheers, Chris -- Chris Samuel : http://www.csamuel.org/ : Melbourne, VIC This email may come with a PGP signature as a file. Do not panic. For more info see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenPGP signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs The short answer from my point of view is yes. This doesn't really change the motivations for working on btrfs or the problems we're trying to solve. ... which sounds logical to me. From looking at the project for a while one can see you are trying to solve problems that are not really linux' ones... -- Regards, Stephan -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 5:46 PM, Stephan von Krawczynski sk...@ithnet.com wrote: On Mon, 20 Apr 2009 12:38:57 -0400 Chris Mason chris.ma...@oracle.com wrote: The short answer from my point of view is yes. This doesn't really change the motivations for working on btrfs or the problems we're trying to solve. ... which sounds logical to me. From looking at the project for a while one can see you are trying to solve problems that are not really linux' ones... Even so, I certainly hope that btrfs end up at least as reliable and feature-complete as ZFS, if ZFS itself cannot be merged into Linux. That's a big ask, but now that ZFS' IP has been imported into Oracle, perhaps a lot of patent and copyright issues can be smoothed over, giving btrfs a huge advantage relative to what it had before the acquisition. -- Dmitri Nikulin Centre for Synchrotron Science Monash University Victoria 3800, Australia -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
Dmitri now that ZFS' IP has been imported into Oracle You write as though this is a completed task. In reality, there are several hurdles (as seen from the IBM offer), and it will take at least six months to get to the point that you assume has been complete. To EFFECTIVELY merge the IP will probably take a few years. As with the IBM offer, the Oracle offer isn't done, and could fail. At this point, Chris is correct in choosing to move forward with BTRFS. As for what happens when/if Oracle buys Sun, that's best decided AFTER it happens. Peter Ashford -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 10:37:33AM -0400, Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs is still a key project for us. But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. (OTOH, acquiring Sun's patent portfolio… there are some strange places on earth where people care about software patents). -- Tomasz Torcz RIP is irrevelant. Spoofing is futile. xmpp: zdzich...@chrome.pl Your routes will be aggreggated. -- Alex Yuriev -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 18:10 +0200, Ahmed Kamal wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs The short answer from my point of view is yes. This doesn't really change the motivations for working on btrfs or the problems we're trying to solve. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. Regards, Andrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories of other imported FSes (XFS), and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories of other imported FSes (XFS), Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm wrong) have previously been give-aways. This one is different - zfs is in active development, with highly welcomed features like de-duplication coming. and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this may not be strictly true. This was one-man's effort (though a heroic one, definitely), hardly a case to compare with. Regards, Andrey -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
On Mon, 2009-04-20 at 21:18 +0400, Andrey Kuzmin wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 9:08 PM, Gregory Maxwell gmaxw...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin andrey.v.kuz...@gmail.com wrote: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal email.ahmedka...@googlemail.com wrote: But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs. Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. May I suggest the name ZbtrFS :) Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment— But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories of other imported FSes (XFS), Imported file-systems (someone more experienced may correct me if I'm wrong) have previously been give-aways. Definitely not true. This one is different - zfs is in active development, with highly welcomed features like de-duplication coming. I can't read the future, or really say the future directions of any of the sun projects. What I do know is that btrfs development will continue, and that Oracle's work on btrfs will not end or decrease. -chris -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
Chris Mason wrote: Hello everyone, Just a quick note about the recently announced purchase of Sun by Oracle. This does not change Oracle's plans for Btrfs at all, and Btrfs is still a key project for us. Please, keep your btrfs contributions and testing coming ;) -chris Just to chime in on a supportive note here, my file system team at Red Hat is very interested in the continued success of the btrfs project and we definitely plan to keep contributing (and hopefully even increase the number of active Red Hat contributors)! Regards, Ric -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Re: Btrfs development plans
Andrey Kuzmin wrote: snip Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. snip There's one thing you're overlooking: the core kernel developers have already stated that ZFS is a rampant layering violation and otherwise indicated they do not want ZFS in the Linux kernel, whereas BtrFS has gotten a much more positive response. It may well be that on the /Oracle/ side, the political and technical problems with porting ZFS are smaller than those with finishing BtrFS, but if the kernel developers wouldn't accept it, _any_ money and effort spent on it would be wasted money and effort. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-btrfs in the body of a message to majord...@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
