Slashdot Log In
ZFS On Linux - It's Alive!
Posted by
Zonk
on Tue Jun 19, 2007 02:47 PM
from the insert-mad-science-laugh-here dept.
from the insert-mad-science-laugh-here dept.
lymeca writes "LinuxWorld reports that Sun Microsystem's ZFS filesystem has been converted from its incarnation in OpenSolaris to a module capable of running in the Linux user-space filsystem project, FUSE. Because of the license incompatibilities with the Linux kernel, it has not yet been integrated for distribution within the kernel itself. This project, called ZFS on FUSE, aims to enable GNU/Linux users to use ZFS as a process in userspace, bypassing the legal barrier inherent in having the filesystem coded into the Linux kernel itself. Booting from a ZFS partition has been confirmed to work. The performance currently clocks in at about half as fast as XFS, but with all the success the NTFS-3g project has had creating a high performance FUSE implementation of the NTFS filesystem, there's hope that performance tweaking could yield a practical elimination of barriers for GNU/Linux users to make use of all that ZFS has to offer."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The GPL doesn't attempt to codify all the intricate details that it would take to define such a distinction in the license. It's only described as an accepted rule of thumb in the FAQ. So what's the deal? It seems like this rule is really holding back some commercial support for Linux - is the current situation what we really want, and at any rate how did we get here? Would we be better off if such a separable, non-essential feature could be linked in somehow instead of needing to be put behind extra layers of abstraction?
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:4, Insightful)
I agree the kernel vs. userland issue is arbitrary. However, think about all the closed-source software running on Linux, or opensource with other licenses but GPL v2. These are legally possible only because we make the distinction.
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:4, Informative)
I am pretty sure that kernel modules run at the kernel level and can access all the same structures that a driver compiled into the kernel can.
FUSE file systems run at the same privilege level as a user program does. In theory it is a slower but more robust system. If a FUSE file system crashes you can just restart the filesystem and remount the drive. If a kernel level file system crashes it can cause a kernel panic and bring down the entire system.
So the distinction between user-land and kernel drivers is anything but arbitrary.
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Informative)
The version of the GPL included with the Linux kernel states at the top:
Not sure how far back this clarification really goes, but I think it predates the GPLv2-only one, making it at least six years old.
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Right Thing(tm) is to keep the license as it is. It ensures the Solaris code has to be shared (like the GPL), but doesn't pollute source code around it ( GPL - viral clause = CDDL. Same license as firefox, or apache)
Linux wanting to pillage from the project isn't a good enough reason to make it impossible for people to write non-GPL drivers for Solaris
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Informative)
relicensing Solaris as GPL is entirely unnecessary and doesn't help Sun or Solaris at all... the only people it helps is Linux, and that shouldn't be the primary concern of OpenSolaris.
If OpenSolaris happens to help Linux, great, but it shouldn't hurt itself & go out of it's way to do it
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Insightful)
The existence of the LGPL goes some way to suggesting that this indeed is the generally accepted understanding. It's not been codified in any legal judgement that I'm aware of, but that's only becaue there have been relatively few legal judgements worldwide on this particular aspect of the GPL. Most breaches seem to be far more flagrant.
Parent
"The FSF guideline is" (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:"The FSF guideline is" (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't believe that's true. I think you're thinking of the explicit exemption Linus put in the COPYING file of the Linux kernel to say that the syscall interface was a GPL interface (there are Linux contributors who disagree to an extent with him on that).
Parent
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:5, Informative)
He has added a note clarifying that userland programs making system calls are not derivative works. That is clarifying his interpretation of the license. At the most, it adds an exemption, which is common practice.
The "and later versions" clause is not part of the GPL, it lies outside it. In effect, it makes the work automatically multiple licensed as and when new versions of the GPL comes out: so if you distribute something under GPL v2 with that clause, when v3 comes you it will become dual licensed under 2 and 3, when v 4 comes out it will be triple licensed etc. This allows people to redistribute under v2 or any later version, with or without the "and later versions" clause.
Parent
Re:Ah, well then... (Score:5, Interesting)
The idea, though, is that the work which you wish to modify might not have existed at all had copyright not existed. The person who created the work might not have desired to if s/he wasn't going to be able to sell it. Or they might not have been able to devote their lives to their craft, and thus ended up not having enough time to create as much. I highly doubt that the entire library of Stephen King would exist today if he wasn't a professional writer, paid for his craft.
It's obviously impossible to know what might have been, but I think that the reasoning behind copyright (in general) is sound. The problems in the current implementation are that copyright is effectively endless (meaning that the creation of new works based on the original is forever forbidden--forever being the key word) and that fair use rights are going out the window.
Parent
Grub (Score:5, Informative)
Grub has supported ZFS booting for a while (forget which branch though).
Cheesy Intro to ZFS Video (Score:5, Informative)
Parts of ZFS already GPLv2'd (Score:5, Informative)
http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2
Re:Parts of ZFS already GPLv2'd (Score:5, Insightful)
From the TFP : Now about that headline, yes I really did say that ZFS code is already available under the GPLv2. I will be completely honest though and make it clear that it isn't all of the ZFS source.
Well that's fantastic... which parts do we get? The ones that make ZFS revolutionary or the ones that make it a rehashed XFS, JFS, Rieser, etc? I don't see how this is any different than any of the bait-n-switch scams that people post to
FUSE defeats the entire purpose. ZFS is meant to run and support a large/huge file store. What admin in their right mind would do that through userspace unless it's solely for backup?
The point is, ZFS is not functionally viable for Linux on the environments for which it was intended.
Parent
The headline... (Score:5, Funny)
ZFS On Linux - It's Alive!! IT IS ALIVE!!! MWUHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!
The manic laughter is especially important!
Legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it.
kernel patch? (Score:4, Funny)
Noooooo!!!! (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Can't you make a binary blob kernel module? (Score:4, Interesting)
Parent
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:5, Insightful)
By "co-opted" I presume you mean, "Made major contributions to [gnome.org]"?
Parent
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Sorry, it's Linux that's playing the license games, not Sun. One only needs to look at ZFS support in FreeBSD to see that (Speaking of, where's the 'ZFS On FreeBSD!' story?).
The GPL "everything under our license" philosophy is the sole cause of these so-called "license issues". If Linux wants to use Sun's code, why should Sun have to release it under Linux' license?
Parent
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:4, Insightful)
Parent
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:4, Funny)
Confuse them again at your own peril.
Parent
Re:Never mind ZFS (Score:4, Informative)
The $COMPANY network is loaded with Linux workstations and servers, all with their own lotsabyte drives -- and the only things those drives are used for is a tiny system image. Meanwhile the network is getting hammered.
Are you asking for a network based filesystem like AFS [wikipedia.org]? Did I misunderstand your issue?
Parent