There is ZFS development happening outside of Oracle. Many of the
active ZFS developers at a *variety* of organizations are collaborating
within the illumos community using a private e-mail list much like an
standards body Working Group (we even call ourselves the ZFS Working
Group). And not all of the participants here are coming from Solaris
backgrounds -- we have Linux, FreeBSD, and MacOS represented.
(Privacy is important to keep the discussions focused and technical.
And some participants would prefer to keep their participation
non-public.)
Generally, the questions you raise are being worked on. We'll have more
to say in the coming weeks.
In the meantime, if you're engaged in active ZFS development, or want to
be, please contact me off-list and I'll see about getting you added to
the private email list.
- Garrett
On Fri, 2011-03-25 at 16:17 -0300, Chris Forgeron wrote:
> I’m curious where ZFS development is going.
>
>
>
> I’ve been reading through the lists, and watching Oracle, Nexenta,
> Illumos, and OpenIndiana for signs of life.
>
>
>
> 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.
>
>
>
> So, I decided to see if I could help set something in motion.
>
>
>
> Agreeing with some of the opinions expressed here,
> (http://opensolaris.org/jive/thread.jspa?messageID=508798񼍾 ) I
> contacted Erik Trimble and we had a very quick/brief discussion that
> we want to bring to the list so a more public and wide-scope
> discussion can happen.
>
>
>
> I have my ideas of where I’d like to see ZFS go, Erik doesn’t fully
> agree, and has other ideas as well. We both know that the rest of the
> community will have further ideas on what should be happening, and
> that’s why we’re discussing it here.
>
>
>
> However, I think it’s imperative that we don’t fracture ZFS into 4
> different OpenSource versions that are all incompatible with
> each-other.
>
>
>
>
>
> I’d like to lay out some groundwork for this thread to keep it
> manageable;
>
>
>
> 1) This thread is about ZFS, not generic Solaris development,
> userland or non-ZFS development in _x_Solaris.
>
>
>
>
>
> In my mind, I see these issues as pressing and needing addressing;
>
>
>
> 1) Action. We need an official “we’re moving on” type of
> agreement, so we stop waiting for Oracle to do something. I don’t
> think we’re going to see v31 anytime soon, let’s stop waiting for it.
> What version do we branch from?
>
>
>
> 2) Home? ZFS requires a home. What is the home? Is it official?
> Will it always be able to live here? This home would also be in charge
> of version/change management. A new version system will need to be
> created to diff from the Oracle efforts going forward.
>
>
>
> 3) Generic? Can this home be generic (i.e. lessen or remove the
> bias to Solaris)? Is it practical? FreeBSD has a very robust ZFS copy,
> running v28 in the beta builds. Pjd has done a lot of work porting
> this, and I know other people will do a lot of work porting ZFS in the
> future. Can we minimize the efforts of porting ZFS so the work can go
> into development and features, not constantly adapting changes to the
> OS in use? More than just Solaris developers want to contribute to
> ZFS.
>
>
>
> 4) Legal? Is there anything in ZFS that needs to be removed to
> ensure it has a long vibrant life in the Open Source community? Do we
> need a “Lite” version much like 4.4 BSD Lite to escape AT&T? This may
> need to spawn into a separate thread, as I’ve already seen a few epic
> threads about that topic alone.
>
>
>
>
>
> I think that’s plenty to get this started.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
_______________________________________________
zfs-discuss mailing list
zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss
