> From: Richard Elling [mailto:richard.ell...@gmail.com]
> I disagree the ZFS is developmentally challenged.
As an IT consultant, 8 years ago before I heard of ZFS, it was always easy to
sell Ontap, as long as it fit into the budget. 5 years ago, whenever I told
customers about ZFS, it was always a quick easy sell. Nowadays, anybody who's
heard of it says they don't want it, because they believe it's a dying product,
and they're putting their bets on linux instead. I try to convince them
otherwise, but I'm trying to buck the word on the street. They don't listen,
however much sense I make. I can only sell ZFS to customers nowadays, who have
still never heard of it.
"Developmentally challenged" doesn't mean there is no development taking place.
It means the largest development effort is working closed-source, and not
available for free (except some purposes), so some consumers are going to
follow their path, while others are going to follow the open source branch
illumos path, which means both disunity amongst developers and disunity amongst
consumers, and incompatibility amongst products. So far, in the illumos
branch, I've only seen bugfixes introduced since zpool 28, no significant
introduction of new features. (Unlike the oracle branch, which is just as easy
to sell as ontap).
Which presents a challenge. Hence the term, "challenged."
Right now, ZFS is the leading product as far as I'm concerned. Better than MS
VSS, better than Ontap, better than BTRFS. It is my personal opinion that one
day BTRFS will eclipse ZFS due to oracle's unsupportive strategy causing
disparity and lowering consumer demand for zfs, but of course, that's just a
personal opinion prediction for the future, which has yet to be seen. So far,
every time I evaluate BTRFS, it fails spectacularly, but the last time I did,
was about a year ago. I'm due for a BTRFS re-evaluation now.
zfs-discuss mailing list