On Mon, 26 Aug 2019 06:44:58 -0400 Kent Borg <[email protected]> wrote:
> I read about btrfs years ago and it sounded really cool, and really > scary. I figured I would play with it when it got stable, when there > was an fsck for it...but I haven't gotten around to it. I don't understand why anyone would want fsck for Btrfs or ZFS. The designs of the filesystems make traditional fsck unnecessary. I also don't see what's "scarey" about it. My experience is that Btrfs is stable for day to day use, and SuSE agree: it's their default filesystem for the OS volumes on SLES. Data volumes on SLES are XFS because random access databases don't work so good on COW storage. Regarding ZFS licensing: the only "problem" with distributing ZFS modules is a (probably well-meaning) misuse of the terms "derivative work" and "combine". ZFS clearly is not derivative of the Linux kernel and loading a kernel module does not in and of itself constitute "combining" software. -- Rich Pieri _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss
