Idea
#375: Support ZFS file system
|
| |
621
|
|
|
Written by linuxworks the 29 Feb 08 at 01:16.
Category: System.
Related to:
Nothing/Others.
Status: New
|
|
|
Description
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
pynej wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:18
|
Please do this. The ZFS-FUSE module is just way to slow to be practical. The 9MB/s of ZFS-FUSE is just unusable compared with the 60MB/s of EXT3.
|
|
smbm wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:24
| |
This is currently unfeasible due to licensing problems.
|
|
pynej wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:44
| |
As I understand it, it can't be added to the kernel due to the kernels license. But can't we do something like the nvidia drivers, they have an incompatible license, so they are provided as an external package, but still as a kernel module.
|
|
smbm wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 01:45
|
GPL (which the Linux kernel is licensed under) and CDDL are incompatible. CDDL is more restrictive than GPL (I think) which means it can't be bundled with the kernel.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zfs#Linux
|
|
unit3 wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:13
| |
I agree with pynej, an approach like the nvidia binary driver, except with everything being one sort of open source or another, seems feasible.
|
|
FearZip wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:04
| |
Maybe if mac os x adopts it as their "official" filesystem would be interesting to add it to ubuntu through fuse, like ntfs, for compatibility, but for what i see it looks like many people want it as a every day use fs, what i think is NOT recommended (because it is not in the kernel).
|
|
openstandards wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:29
|
Btrfs is the way forward to go its backed by Oracle and well ZFS isn't compatible with the GPL.
I can't see Btrfs dying anytime soon as oracle will be looking to lock horns with Sun and ZFS.
|
|
johan wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 12:30
| |
Let's work in Reiser4 and the other interesting alternatives instead. For the home-user it will make very little difference.
|
|
filoup wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 13:57
|
ZFS is definitely interesting to have.
If the licence issue can be solved with something similar to the nvidia driver package then my opinion is to do it :)
|
|
pynej wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:14
| |
There is a fuse module, but it's performance makes it unusable.
|
|
pirast wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:38
| |
not possible due to licensing issues.
|
|
ben.wade wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:49
| |
There has got to be a way, it's a superior technology and I feel naked without it.
|
|
kab wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:09
|
Most of the zfs tools are also working in the userspace. These part can easely ported to linux without harm licensing isues. For the rest I think the comment from pynej has something that could solve the problem. Create a stable api for harddisk virtualisation and compile the zfs module as a userspace module that link to this api.
|
|
Yuksare wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 21:44
| |
Maybe just ask Sun to allow OS Linux add zfs to kernel?
|
|
smbm wrote on the 1 Mar 08 at 10:06
| |
It's not Sun we need to ask, it's the kernel folk. The GPL is what is stopping ZFS being included.
|
|
howlingmadhowie wrote on the 3 Mar 08 at 08:47
| |
i was talking to stallman about this recently. he said, that the situation with nvidia is a clear violation of the gpl.
|
|
thornelawler wrote on the 4 Mar 08 at 22:20
|
If Stallman's license is preventing people from making legitimate use of software then it is now *doing* what it was created to prevent.
howlingmadhowie: next time you speak to RMS ask how forbidding Linux users the use (and forbidding kernel developers the integration) of the NVIDIA driver (or ZFS) is giving freedom to users or developers of Linux.
When did Stallman's ideals get lost in the dogma?
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 23:13
|
Yes, we really need ZFS.
Talk with Sun to dual-license it under the GPL or something.
|
|
Eldmannen wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 23:13
| |
Or make a third-party kernel patch that includes ZFS for the Ubuntu kernel.
|
|
Xan wrote on the 14 Mar 08 at 18:09
| |
For only snapshoting purposes, you have ext3cow fs.
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 17 Mar 08 at 15:14
|
Howling, stallman has no idea. If he had his way, Linux would be unsupported on most peoples computers. It already has shocking hardware support because of peoples attitude caused by closed source (people don't want any driver CD's, which means no ubuntu for me until 8.04).
ZFS should be supported. I don't care about politics. It fixes all of our raid problems, and its a good file system. If people don't like that, fine, then Linux has no future.
I'll put it to people simply. If ZFS isn't supported, I'll go to OSX again. Their hardware might be overpriced, but at least I don't have to put up with inferior features all for the sake of open source (which, most people who are fighting for it, don't even touch anyway).
|
|
Rioting_Pacifist wrote on the 18 Mar 08 at 21:38
|
Auzy for an end user, what does zfs support that cant be achieved with ext3cow fs, lvm, evm or reiser4.
desktop users need reiser4 much more than zfs, and the ubuntu team could actually do that.
talking FUD and threatening to throw your dolly out the pram wont change the licensee problem.
ubuntu could make a 3rd party module for zfs but it would work alot worse than any other filesystem ( no access to gpl sysmbols) all they could do is release a patc hset and let us patch our individual kernels, while that would be nice its above most ubuntu users so completely pointless.
We cant preach about the GPL and at the same time ignore other licenses
In short its never going to happen, so if your going to cry about it cry somewhere else. There is every little I'll be missing out on as a desktop user.
|
|
charliem wrote on the 30 Apr 08 at 09:22
|
The lack of ZFS is one of Linux's biggest flaws. At home I have a TV Server running MythTV on Ubuntu. However I wanted to use ZFS for the file server so that is running FreeBSD solely because its not available on Ubuntu.
I have to say ZFS is a massive step forward from traditional file systems and RAID 5. The ability to know all of your data is intact and that the OS knows the data its is providing to an app is accurate is really useful. When you read about its design and features you start wondering why all file systems havn't been doing the same for years.
Soloris and FreeBSD can't currently boot off of ZFS (last time I checked). But for most serious file storage tasks the OS is not on the main storage array anyway.
There is a FUSE port of ZFS for Linux which side steps the politics and licensing issues. The FUSE port however is likely to have performance issues compared to a native port, but at least its a start. The FUSE port isn't quite production ready yet and development is slow. For more info http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/
|
|
Auzy wrote on the 5 Jun 08 at 15:38
|
"Auzy for an end user, what does zfs support that cant be achieved with ext3cow fs, lvm, evm or reiser4?"
1) EXT3cow is still EXT3. Same limitations.
2) LVM apparently can't use write journalling (wikipedia)
3) Dunno about EVM honestly.
4) Reiser4 & ReiserFS murders your wife. Namesys will collapse without Hans Reiser, and many distro's are already moving away from it. Besides, Linus NEVER liked Reiser4 much. Apparently the code wasn't nice unfortunately (I liked features which were taken out actually).
The only thing in common of the items you have mentioned, is that they all have limitations. They support some things, but not everything.
What home users want?
1) To tell when their data is corrupt (ZFS does proper checksums, so thats it easier to fix problems).
2) Versioning. They want to see their file from 5 revisions ago
3) Whack in more harddisks to increase the space of /, WITHOUT MORE PARTITIONS. Never seen a home user distro capable of doing this. For ZFS, its easy.
4) No real limitations. 16 EiB files? A HD movie maybe uses 25GB. Sterographic's? Thats 50GB. Full Holographic craziness 10 million units across (using slices of 10 million movies)? 250Petabytes. Storage wont be a problem. Even if working full 3D holographic technology does get released. And that being said, my brain probably fits on a 5 1/4 floppy anyway. So storage in the future wont be an issue.
5) Cross platform. OSX will like ZFS soon, and solaris does already. Better then supporting something only linux can use!
6) Crazy raid built in. Find me a distro with proper raid support please. Oh wait, only server distro's and hardcore distro's support it. Yet, installing RAID on OSX is so easy, and has been for ages. And yes, its not just for home users.
So what do you want to do Riot? Take the quick and easy way out, and miss out in the future?
OR, do you want to do things properly now, so that developers can later start concentrating on other areas that need improvements?
Why reinvent the wheel? While our competitors are driving around in ferrari's, why should we drive around on bikes when we can hitch a ride off them?
|
|
ArbitraryConstant wrote on the 11 Jun 08 at 04:43
|
Using ZFS would be great if we could, but that option isn't available to us. The licenses are incompatible, and patents preclude an independent reimplementation. This is no accident, Sun intentionally released the code under a license incompatible with Linux.
If you want a copy-on-write checksumming filesystem that can do snapshots and supports multiple devices, be patient and wait until BTRFS is production ready in a year or two. BTRFS does everything you're asking for except for actually being known by the name "ZFS", and even without the legal issues, a ZFS port to Linux would likely take nearly as long, the VFS system is way too different.
|
|
brettalton wrote on the 25 Jun 08 at 19:05
| |
Any progress?
|
|
glotz wrote on the 28 Jun 08 at 23:00
| |
Yes, we licensed the Linux kernel under the CDDL license. You can now send your monies my way. Thanks bye!
|
|
kab wrote on the 16 Jul 08 at 21:00
|
The work should go definitly into BTRFS. As long ZFS is licensing only under CDDL, we have to develop, integrate and heavely testing btrfs. It would be very usefull if ubuntu at least would come with bouild in support for btrfs, so everyone who is intressted could test it witout recompilling the kernel.
You can also vote for http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/416/
|
|
kab wrote on the 16 Jul 08 at 21:00
|
The work should go definitly into BTRFS. As long ZFS is licensing only under CDDL, we have to develop, integrate and heavely testing btrfs. It would be very usefull if ubuntu at least would come with bouild in support for btrfs, so everyone who is intressted could test it witout recompilling the kernel.
You can also vote for http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/416/
|
|
on5sl wrote on the 19 Jul 08 at 23:11
| |
ZFS is still too experimental. And due to the coming of etx4, i would really prefer ext4!
|
|
notyetroot wrote on the 10 Aug 08 at 16:42
| |
+0. Wait for Tux3, or for HAMMER to be ported, or for BTRFS, or use FUSE.
|
Post your comment
|
|
|
Bug #202952
