On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 10:46:19 -0500 Randy Barlow <[email protected]> wrote:
> Alan McKinnon wrote: > > On Tue, 11 Dec 2012 18:28:37 +0530 > > Nilesh Govindrajan <[email protected]> wrote: > >> Exactly the reason why I wanted RAID0 and LVM in combination: more > >> IOPS. ZFS looks very interesting, how stable is it? > > > > On Linux, not at all (it doesn't exist there except using fuse) > > > > On FreeBSD, rock solid. > > On Solaris, rock solid. > > > > It almost seems to be everything btrfs is not... > > The details why this is the case are something I can never remember > straight in my head, but I recall that it's due to licensing that ZFS > cannot be included in the Linux kernel directly. I think it might be > because the ZFS license doesn't have the Copyleft clause that the GPL > requires? That's the one - The ZFS license from Sun is incompatible with GPL-2 That only stops Linus and distros from redistributing the code, the rest of us are free to downloaded it, patch the kernel and run it to our heart's content. > > It's sad, because ZFS is really pretty great. I think btrfs will be > pretty great too once it is stabilized, so I look forward to that. > > Also, I had seen some kernel patches that you can apply yourself to > get ZFS in Linux without FUSE a year or two back. I never tried them, > and can't attest to how stable or unstable they might be, but you > could look into that as well. > -- Alan McKinnon [email protected]
