wrote:
> >It gets even better. Executables become part of the swap space via
> >mmap, so that if you have a lot of copies of the same process running in
> >memory, the executable bits don't waste any more space (well, unless you
> >use the sticky bit, although that might be deprecated, or if you
Alexander Block wrote:
> tar/pax was the initial format that was chosen for btrfs send/receive
> as it looked like the best and most compatible way. In the middle of
> development however I realized that we need more then storing whole
> and incremental files/dirs in the format. We needed to stor
Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 19.10.2012 12:17, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Arne Jansen wrote:
> >
> >>> Is this an attempt to create a competition for TAR?
> >>
> >> Not really. We'd have preferred tar if it would have been powerful enough.
>
Arne Jansen wrote:
> > Is this an attempt to create a competition for TAR?
>
> Not really. We'd have preferred tar if it would have been powerful enough.
> It's more an alternative to rsync for incremental updates. I really
> like the send/receive feature and want to make it available for cross-
Arne Jansen wrote:
> On 10/18/2012 10:19 PM, Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> > Arne Jansen wrote:
> >> We have finished a beta version of the feature.
> >
> > What does FITS stand for?
>
> Filesystem Incremental Transport Stream
> (or Filesystem Independent Transport Stream)
Is this an attempt to creat
opensolarisisdeadlongliveopensolaris
wrote:
> > From: zfs-discuss-boun...@opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss-
> > boun...@opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Joerg Schilling
> >
> > Well, why then has there been a discussion about a "closed zfs mailing
> >
Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> On 08/09/2012 01:05 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> >
> >>> To me it seems that the "open-sourced ZFS community" is not open, or
> >>> could you
> >>> point me to their mailing list arch
Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> > To me it seems that the "open-sourced ZFS community" is not open, or could
> > you
> > point me to their mailing list archives?
> >
> > Jörg
> >
>
> z...@lists.illumos.org
Well, why then has there been a discussion about a "closed zfs mailing list"?
Is this no longer
Jim Klimov wrote:
> In the end, the open-sourced ZFS community got no public replies
> from Oracle regarding collaboration or lack thereof, and decided
> to part ways and implement things independently from Oracle.
> AFAIK main ZFS development converges in illumos-gate, contributed
> to by some O
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 10 Jul 2012, Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> >
> > CPU's are not getting much faster. But IO is definitely getting faster.
> > It's best to keep ahead of that curve.
>
> It seems that per-socket CPU performance is doubling every year.
> That seems like faster to me
Sa?o Kiselkov wrote:
> On 07/11/2012 10:47 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Sa??o Kiselkov wrote:
> >
> >> write in case verify finds the blocks are different). With hashes, you
> >> can leave verify off, since hashes are extremely unlikely (~10^-77) to
> >
Sa??o Kiselkov wrote:
> write in case verify finds the blocks are different). With hashes, you
> can leave verify off, since hashes are extremely unlikely (~10^-77) to
> produce collisions.
This is how a lottery works. the chance is low but some people still win.
q~A
___
Eric Schrock wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 11:19 AM, wrote:
> >
> >
> > In the very beginning, mkdir(1) was a set-uid application; it used
> > "mknod" to make a directory and then created a link from
> >newdir to newdir/.
> > and from
> >"." to newdir/..
> >
>
> Interesting, g
Eric Schrock wrote:
> The decision to not support link(2) of directories was very deliberate - it
> is an abomination that never should have been allowed in the first place.
> My guess is that the behavior of unlink(2) on directories is a direct
> side-effect of that (if link isn't supported, the
bofh wrote:
> There's something going on then. I have 7x 3TB disk at home, in
> raidz3, so about 12TB usable. 2.5TB actually used. Scrubbing takes
> about 2.5 hours. I had done the resilvering as well, and that did not
> take 15 hours/drive. Copying 3TBs onto 2.5" SATA drives did take more
>
Jim Klimov wrote:
> We know that large redundancy is highly recommended for
> big HDDs, so in-place autoexpansion of the raidz1 pool
> onto 3Tb disks is out of the question.
Before I started to use my thumper, I reconfigured it to use RAID-Z2.
This allows me to just replace disks during operati
? wrote:
> How can I test if a file on ZFS has holes, i.e. is a sparse file,
> using the C api?
See star .
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/star/
or
http://hg.berlios.de/repos/schillix-on/file/e3829115a7a4/usr/src/cmd/star/hole.c
The interface was defined for star in September 2
andy thomas wrote:
> I've tended to use GNU tar on Solaris as apparently there was a bug in the
> Solaris version of tar from very log ago where it would not extract files
> properly from tarfiles created on non-Solaris systems. Maybe this
> long-standing bug has been fixed at last?
This is a
andy thomas wrote:
> So it is GNU tar that is broken and not Solaris tar? I always thought it
> was the other way round. Thanks for letting me know.
Before autoumn 2004, Sun tar had several problems with standard compliance but
then it has been tested against tartest(1) from star.
> > But GN
andy thomas wrote:
> > What 'tar' program were you using? Make sure to also try using the
> > Solaris-provided tar rather than something like GNU tar.
>
> I was using GNU tar actually as the original archive was created on a
> Linux machine. I will try it again using Solaris tar.
GNU tar does
Erik Trimble wrote:
> On 7/25/2011 3:32 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> > How long have you been using a SSD? Do you see any performance decrease? I
> > mean, ZFS does not support TRIM, so I wonder about long term effects...
>
> Frankly, for the kind of use that ZFS puts on a SSD, TRIM makes no
> imp
Paul Kraus wrote:
> There have been a number of RFC's effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC's I'll
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. There are many groups that do standards
> that do not meet in public. In fact, I can't think of any standards bodies
> that *do* hold open meetings.
You probybly don't know POSIX.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berli
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many of the
> former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>
> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has been
> agreed upon widely already, and implementatio
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High wrote:
> >... unless Oracle's zpool v30 is different than Nexenta's v30.
>
> This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
> with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
> all of which
Ian Collins wrote:
> >> *ufsrestore works fine on ZFS filesystems (although I haven't tried it
> >> with any POSIX ACLs on the original ufs filesystem, which would probably
> >> simply get lost).
> > star -copy -no-fsync is typically 30% faster that ufsdump | ufsrestore.
> >
> Does it preser
Erik Trimble wrote:
> rsync is indeed slower than star; so far as I can tell, this is due
> almost exclusively to the fact that rsync needs to build an in-memory
> table of all work being done *before* it starts to copy. After that, it
> copies at about the same rate as star (my observations).
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> Dan Shelton wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of any freeware program that can speed up copying tons
> > of data (2 TB) from UFS to ZFS on same server?
>
> I use 'ufsdump | ufsrestore'*. I would also suggest try setting
> 'sync=disabled' during the operation, and reverting it a
Freddie Cash wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 10:53 AM, Dan Shelton wrote:
> > Is anyone aware of any freeware program that can speed up copying tons of
> > data (2 TB) from UFS to ZFS on same server?
>
> rsync, with --whole-file --inplace (and other options), works well for
> the initial copy.
Dan Shelton wrote:
> Is anyone aware of any freeware program that can speed up copying tons
> of data (2 TB) from UFS to ZFS on same server?
Try star -copy
Note that due to the problems on ZFS to deal with stable states, I recommend to
use -no-fsync and it may of course help to specify a
"jeff.liu" wrote:
> Hello List,
>
> I am trying to fetch the data/hole info of a sparse file through the
> lseek(SEEK_HOLE/SEEK_DATA)
> stuff, the result of fpathconf(..., _PC_MIN_HOLE_SIZE) is ok, so I think this
> interface is supported
> on my testing ZFS, but SEEK_HOLE always return the spa
Ian Collins wrote:
> But they are involved in the discussions around which features should be
> there, and help to prioritise those features.
>
> I guess my fear is the external ZFS developers have adopted the Oracle
> rather than the OpenSolaris development model. We all know where that
> le
Richard Elling wrote:
> > The feeling I get is that while there is plenty of userland work being
> > done, there is next to nothing on ZFS development outside of the Oracle
> > camp.
>
> There is an active ZFS working group where many people contributing code to
> the core
> ZFS are members. I
David Magda wrote:
> On Mar 20, 2011, at 09:26, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > The long term acceptance for ZFS depends on how Oracle will behave past the
> > announced Solaris 11 is released. If they don't Opensource the related ZFS,
> > they will harm the future
Michael DeMan wrote:
> Moving forward...
>
> If Oracle continues to release critical ZFS feature sets under CDDL to the
> community, then:
>
> A) They are no longer pre-releasing those features to OpenSolaris
> B) FreeBSD gets them at the same time.
>
> If Oracle does not continue to release ZFS
Fred Liu wrote:
> Probably, we need place a tag before zfs -- Opensource-ZFS or Oracle-ZFS
> after Solaris11 release.
> If it is true, these two ZFSes will definitely evolve into different
> directions.
> BTW, Did Oracle unveil the actual release date? We are also at the cross
> road...
The
Fred Liu wrote:
> Sorry. I put post in cc.
> I use NFSv3(linux 2.4 kernel) coreutils-8.9.
On Linux, NFSv3 does not support ACLs at all.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)
joerg.schill.
Cindy Swearingen wrote:
> Hi Robert,
>
> We integrated some fixes that allowed you to replace disks of equivalent
> sizes, but 40 MB is probably beyond that window.
In former times, similar problems applied to partitioned disks with UFS
and we at that time did check the market for the lowest di
Andrew Gabriel wrote:
> If you go back to the late 1970's before tracks had embedded servo data,
> on multi-platter disks you had one surface which contained the head
> positioning servo data, and the drive relied on accurate vertical
> alignment between heads/surfaces to keep on track (and dr
Orvar Korvar wrote:
> Ok, I read a bit more on TRIM. It seems that without TRIM, there will be more
> unnecessary reads and writes on the SSD, the result being that writes can
> take long time.
>
> A) So, how big of a problem is it? Sun has for long sold SSDs (for L2ARC and
> ZIL), and they do
Pasi Kärkkäinen wrote:
> On Mon, Jan 31, 2011 at 03:41:52PM +0100, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Brandon High wrote:
> >
> > > On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
> > > wrote:
> > > > What is the status of ZFS support for TRIM?
> >
Torrey McMahon wrote:
> On 1/30/2011 5:26 PM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Richard Elling wrote:
> >
> >> ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
> >> file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
> >> to
Brandon High wrote:
> On Sat, Jan 29, 2011 at 8:31 AM, Edward Ned Harvey
> wrote:
> > What is the status of ZFS support for TRIM?
>
> I believe it's been supported for a while now.
> http://www.c0t0d0s0.org/archives/6792-SATA-TRIM-support-in-Opensolaris.html
The command is implemented in the sa
Richard Elling wrote:
> ufsdump is the problem, not ufsrestore. If you ufsdump an active
> file system, there is no guarantee you can ufsrestore it. The only way
> to guarantee this is to keep the file system quiesced during the entire
> ufsdump. Needless to say, this renders ufsdump useless for
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (Joerg Schilling) wrote:
> Erik Trimble wrote:
>
> > I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
> > question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
>
> Netapp filed patents (without
Erik Trimble wrote:
> I've read Joerg's paper, and I've read several of the patents in
> question, and nowhere around is there any real code. A bit of
Netapp filed patents (without code) in 1993, I of course have working code for
SuinOS-4.9 from 1991. Se below for more information.
> pseudo-
Martin Matuska wrote:
> Tim Cook cook.ms> writes:
>
> > You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is
> your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated that
> statement, you'd preface it with "in my opinion" so you don't have people
> runnin
Darren J Moffat wrote:
> On 22/12/2010 20:27, Garrett D'Amore wrote:
> > That said, some operations -- and cryptographic ones in particular --
> > may use floating point registers and operations because for some
> > architectures (sun4u rings a bell) this can make certain expensive
>
> Well remem
Phil Harman wrote:
> Changes to the resilvering implementation don't necessarily require
> changes to the on disk format (although they could). Of course, there
> might be an issue moving a pool mid-resilver from one implementation to
> another.
We seem to come to a similar problem as wuth UF
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 12/16/10 11:32 AM +0100 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Note that while there existist
> > numerous papers from lawyers that consistently explain which parts of
> > the GPLv2 are violating US law and thus are void,
>
> Can you elaborate?
S
Miles Nordin wrote:
> >>>>> "js" == Joerg Schilling
> delivered the following alternate reality of idealogical
> partisan hackery:
>
> js> GPLv3 does not give you anything you don't have from CDDL
> js> also.
>
> I
"C. Bergström" wrote:
> lalala..
-> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Teletubbies
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de(uni)
joerg.schill...@fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot
"Linder, Doug" wrote:
> > > Why do you want them to "GPL" ZFS? In what way would that save you
> > annoyance?
> >
> > I actually think Doug was trying to say he wished Oracle would open the
> > development and make the source code open-sourced, not necessarily
> > GPL'd.
>
> Yes. I don't reall
Erik Trimble wrote:
> The last update I see to the ZFS public tree is 29 Oct 2010. Which, I
> *think*, is about the time that the fork for the Solaris 11 Express
> snapshot was taken.
Do you really see such an update?
The last time I tried, the source was frozen on August 18th 2010.
Jörg
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> These reasons don't make CDDL incompatible with GPL. GPL is
> compatible with any license which is at least as permissive as itself.
> GPLv2 only requires that the recipient be able to receive all of the
> source code under terms which allow building new binaries (inc
Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "bf" == Bob Friesenhahn writes:
>
> bf> Perhaps it is better for Linux if it is GPLv2, but probably
> bf> not if it is GPLv3.
>
> That's my understanding: GPLv3 is the one you would need to preserve
> software freedom under deals like NetApp<->Oracle patent pa
Miles Nordin wrote:
> * when do the CDDL patent protections apply? to deals between Oracle
>and Netapp? or is it only protection against Oracle patents? I
>think the latter, but then, which Oracle patents? Suppose:
The CDDL gives patent grants to all patents that relate to code code
Tim Cook wrote:
> > I don't believe that there is a significant risk as the NetApp patents are
> > invalid because of prior art.
> >
> >
> You are not a court of law, and that statement has not been tested. It is
> your opinion and nothing more. I'd appreciate if every time you repeated
> that
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> Problem is... Oracle is now the only company in the world who's immune to
> netapp lawsuit over ZFS. Even if IBM and Dell and HP wanted to band together
> and fund the open-source development of ZFS and openindiana... It's a real
> risk.
I don't believe that ther
Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:
> Hi all
>
> (crossposting to zfs-discuss)
>
> This error also seems to occur on osol 134. Any idea what this might be?
>
> > ioctl(4, USCSICMD, 0x08046910) = 0
> > ioctl(4, USCSICMD, 0x08046900) = 0
> > ioctl(4, USCSICMD, 0x08046570) = 0
> > ioctl(4, USCSICMD, 0x08046
"Richard L. Hamilton" wrote:
> Typically on most filesystems, the inode number of the root
> directory of the filesystem is 2, 0 being unused and 1 historically
> once invisible and used for bad blocks (no longer done, but kept
> reserved so as not to invalidate assumptions implicit in ufsdump ta
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 8/19/10 10:48 AM +0200 Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > 1) The OpenSource definition
> > http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php section 9 makes it very
> > clear that an OSS license must not restrict other software and must not
> > preven
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> There is no common C++ ABI. So you get into compatibility concerns
> between code built with different compilers (like Studio vs. g++).
> Fail.
>
The interesting thing is: Sun Studio on Linux is able to interoperate with g++
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-b
"Edward Ned Harvey" wrote:
> The reasons for ZFS not in Linux must be more than just the license issue.
If Linux has ZFS, then it would be possible to do
- I/O performance analysis based on the same FS implementation
- stability analysis for data, crashes, ...
and a lot more. It
Ian Collins wrote:
> A quick test with a C++ application I'm working with which does a lot of
> string and container manipulation shows it
> runs about 10% slower in 64 bit mode on AMD64 and about the same in 32
> or 64 bit on a core i7. Built with -fast.
This may be a result of the way the li
Ross Walker wrote:
> > If a shell script may be dependent on GNU 'cat', does that make the shell
> > script a "derived work"? Note that GNU 'cat' could be replaced with some
> > other 'cat' since 'cat' has a well defined interface. A very similar
> > situation exists for loadable modules whi
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> All of this is entirely legal conjecture, by people who aren't lawyers,
> for issues that have not been tested by court and are clearly subject to
> interpretation. Since it no longer is relevant to the topic of the
> list, can we please either take the discussion offl
Miles Nordin wrote:
> > "gd" == Garrett D'Amore writes:
>
> >> Joerg is correct that CDDL code can legally live right
> >> alongside the GPLv2 kernel code and run in the same program.
>
> gd> My understanding is that no, this is not possible.
>
> GPLv2 and CDDL are incompatible
Ian Collins wrote:
> On 08/18/10 12:05 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> > Ian Collins wrote:
> >
> >
> >>> If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit
> >>> program is
> >>> indeed a bit slower than the same p
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 14:04 -0500, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> > On Tue, 17 Aug 2010, Ross Walker wrote:
> > >
> > > And there lies the problem, you need the agreement of all copyright
> > > holders in a GPL project to change it's licensing terms and some
> > > just will
Ian Collins wrote:
> > If you have an orthogonal architecture like sparc, a typical 64 bit program
> > is
> > indeed a bit slower than the same program in 32 bit.
> >
> > On Amd64, you have twice as many registers in 64 bit mode and this is the
> > reason for a typical performance gain of ~ 30%
Frank Cusack wrote:
> On 8/16/10 9:57 AM -0400 Ross Walker wrote:
> > No, the only real issue is the license and I highly doubt Oracle will
> > re-release ZFS under GPL to dilute it's competitive advantage.
>
> You're saying Oracle wants to keep zfs out of Linux?
In order to get zfs into Linux,
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> It can be as simple as impact on the cache. 64-bit programs tend to be
> bigger, and so they have a worse effect on the i-cache.
>
> Unless your program does something that can inherently benefit from
> 64-bit registers, or can take advantage of the richer instruction
Miles Nordin wrote:
> dd> 2 * Copyright (C) 2007 Oracle. All rights reserved.
> dd> 3 *
> dd> 4 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or
> dd> 5 * modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public
> dd> 6 * License v2 as published by the Free Sof
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> > I repeated this test and it turned out, that Linux did not even start to
> > write
> > to the disk when gtar finished.
>
> As a test of ext? performance, that does seem to be lacking something!
>
> I guess it's a consequence of the low sound levels of modern disk dr
Andrej Podzimek wrote:
> P. S. As far as Phoronix is concerned... Well, I remember how they once used
> a malfunctioning and crippled Reiser4 implementation (hacked by the people
> around the ZEN patchset so that it caused data corruption (!) and kernel
> crashes) and "compared" it to other fi
Tim Cook wrote:
> insults. Oracle can pull the plug at any time they choose. *ONE* developer
> from Redhat does not change the fact that Oracle owns the rights to the
> majority of the code, and can relicense it, or discontinue code updates, as
> they see fit.
It would be most unlikely that Or
Tim Cook wrote:
> > The real question is, WHY would they do it? What would be the business
> > motivation here? Chris Mason would most likely leave Oracle, Red Hat
> > would hire him and fork the last GPL'd version of btrfs and Oracle
> > would have relegated itself to a non-player in the Linux
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
> >> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with GPLv2 requirements.
> >
> > No, there is definitely no need for Oracle to comply with the GPL as they
> > own the code.
>
> Ray's point is, how long would BTRFS remain in the Linux kernel in that case?
Such a licens
"C. Bergström" wrote:
> > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has dual-licensed
> > BTRFS.
> No.. talk to Chris Mason.. it depends on the linux kernel too much
> already to be available under anything, but GPLv2
If he really believes this, then he seems to be missinformed abou
Ray Van Dolson wrote:
> > I absolutely guarantee Oracle can and likely already has
> > dual-licensed BTRFS.
>
> Well, Oracle obviously would want btrfs to stay as part of the Linux
> kernel rather than die a death of anonymity outside of it...
>
> As such, they'll need to continue to comply with
"David Dyer-Bennet" wrote:
>
> On Sun, August 15, 2010 20:44, Peter Jeremy wrote:
>
> > Irrespective of the above, there is nothing requiring Oracle to release
> > any future btrfs or ZFS improvements (or even bugfixes). They can't
> > retrospectively change the license on already released code
Haudy Kazemi wrote:
> EON (Embedded ON) NAS (Network Attached Storage)
> EON ver 0.60.0 is based on build 130
> EON ver 0.59.9 is based on build 129
> EON ver 0.59.5 is based on build 125
> EON ver 0.59.4 is based on build 124
> EON ver 0.59.3 is based on build 122
> EON ver 0.59.2 is based on bu
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> (The only way I could see this changing would be if there was a sudden
> license change which would permit either ZFS to overtake btrfs in the
> Linux kernel, or permit btrfs to overtake zfs in the Solaris kernel. I
There is only a need for a mind change at the Linux
"Mike M" wrote:
> Think: strategic business advantage.
>
> Oracle are not stupid, they recognize a jewel when they see one.
Too bad that they decided to throw it into acid.
Jörg
--
EMail:jo...@schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) Jörg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
j...@cs.tu-berlin.de
"valrh...@gmail.com" wrote:
> Has anyone looked into the new LTFS on LTO-5 for tape backups? Any idea how
> this would work with ZFS? I'm presuming ZFS send / receive are not going to
> work. But it seems rather appealing to have the metadata properly with the
> data, and being able to browse
Giovanni Tirloni wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 18, 2010 at 10:19 PM, Miles Nordin wrote:
> > IMHO it's important we don't get stuck running Nexenta in the same
> > spot we're now stuck with OpenSolaris: with a bunch of CDDL-protected
> > source that few people know how to use in practice because the buil
"Sam Fourman Jr." wrote:
> using FreeBSD 9 w/ ZFSv15 using default settings, nothing in loader.conf
> or nothing in sysctl.conf and a GENERIC kernel
>
> 12GB of memory seems to be all ZFS wanted to use, I have tried
> machines with 32GB
> but zfs never wants to use more unless you play with loade
BM wrote:
> > You seem to be totally convinced in the future of Linux and BTRFS,
> > so I recommend you leave this community and join that one.
>
> Neither I convinced or not. All I say is:
> 1. There is no new builds.
Do you like to tell us Linux is dead because you cannot get binaries from
Lin
Edward Ned Harvey wrote:
> CDDL contains an explicit disclaimer of warranty, which means, if Apple were
> to download CDDL ZFS source code and compile and distribute it themselves,
> they would be fully liable for any lawsuit waged against them. But CDDL
> also allows for Sun to distribute ZFS b
"Garrett D'Amore" wrote:
> This situation is why I'm coming to believe that there is almost no case
> for software patents. (I still think there may be a few exceptions --
> the RSA patent being a good example where there was significant enough
> innovation to possibly justify a patent). The sa
Tristram Scott wrote:
> I see a number of points to consider when choosing amongst the various
> suggestions for backing up zfs file systems. In no particular order, I have
> these:
Let me fill this out for star ;-)
> 1. Does it work in place, or need an intermediate copy on disk?
Yes
> 2.
artiepen wrote:
> 40MB/sec is the best that it gets. Really, the average is 5. I see 4, 5, 2,
> and 6 almost 10x as many times as I see 40MB/sec. It really only bumps up to
> 40 very rarely.
I get Read/write speeds of aprox. 630 MB/s into ZFS on
a SunFire X4540.
It seems that you missconfigur
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010, Joerg Schilling wrote:
> >
> > Sorry but your reply is completely misleading as the people who claim that
> > there is a legal problem with having ZFS in the Linux kernel would of course
> > also claim that Reiserfs cann
Peter Jeremy wrote:
> On 2010-Jun-11 17:41:38 +0800, Joerg Schilling
> wrote:
> >PP.S.: Did you know that FreeBSD _includes_ the GPLd Reiserfs in the FreeBSD
> >kernel since a while and that nobody did complain about this, see e.g.:
> >
> >http://svn.freebs
Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> I am really sad to hear you saying these things since if it was all
> actually true, then Linux, *BSD, and Solaris distributions could not
> legally exist. Thankfully, only part of the above is true.
If linking of independent works would create something else than a
(p
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> The GPL doesn't prevent you doing things. However, it does withdraw
> the agreement that you are permitted to copy someone else's work if
> you do those things. So whilst one can compile and link code together,
> you may not have the rights to use other's code without
Erik Trimble wrote:
> I don't want to restart something here on this list - I just wanted to
> make sure that the original developers understood that there are very
> possibly issues using CDDL code in conjunction with GPL'd code. If they
> are indeed using OpenSolaris ZFS code, then they at
Alex Blewitt wrote:
> On Jun 11, 2010, at 10:43, Joerg Schilling wrote:
>
> > Jason King wrote:
> >
> >> Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is
> >> GPL
> >> licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
> &
Jason King wrote:
> Well technically they could start with the GRUB zfs code, which is GPL
> licensed, but I don't think that's the case.
As explained in depth in a previous posting, there is absolutely no legal
problem with putting the CDDLd original ZFS implementation into the Linux
kernel.
1 - 100 of 460 matches
Mail list logo
