Am 22.02.2013 00:40, schrieb Matthias Appel:
Am 21.02.2013 22:12, schrieb Jeremie Le Hen:
On Wed, Feb 20, 2013 at 12:32:02AM +0100, Matthias Appel wrote:
Yupp, I think, that's (beside the CDDL part of ZFS) it the major
turn-off in any kind of productive enviroment.
At the moment I don't know how FreeBSD handles the ZFS development, but
maintaining a not-really-fully-ZFS besides Oracle is a no-go, IMHO.
Maybe forking it and calling it whatever-name-you-want-FS, would be
better (but would violate CDDL, as far as I can see)..
If you want to have ZFS, you will have to bite the bullet and throw
some
$$$ on Oracles hive and get a fully licensed ZFS alongside with
Solaris.
If thats not an option, move along and choose someting different.
So, long story short, I do not see any option to use ZFS on a free
system.
There are two versions of ZFS: Oracle's ZFS in Solaris 11 and the other
ZFS, which is the open-source evolution of the latest ZFS from
OpenSolaris. This open-source version is mainly developped within
IllumOS, which can be considered as the OpenSolaris heir and is backed
by the Nexenta company. Two others companies, Joyent and Delphix, also
hired former Sun Solaris developers and are putting some efforts in it.
Yes, there are two (ore more) versions of ZFS, as you mentioned before.
That is what I wanted to say....so if there Is ZFS-a and ZFS-b, why call
both of them ZFS?
If this is the right thing, that's another story!
Either do it right, or don't do it.....but it's not my effort that goes
into ZFS (and this is good so, I am a user, not a coder!)..so they have
to decide.
I only have to deice, if I use it....and I don't do it!
