ZFS On Linux - It's Alive! 281
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."
Re:Can't you make a binary blob kernel module? (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:2, Interesting)
Forget ZFS - go native with btrfs (Score:2, Interesting)
* http://oss.oracle.com/projects/btrfs/ [oracle.com]
* http://kerneltrap.org/node/8376 [kerneltrap.org]
Avoid the license squabbles and do what we do best: build it ourselves, only better.
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
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:1, Interesting)
Maybe the "Right Thing" would be for Linux to switch to a compatible license, like the CDDL, or BSD.
Legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
I doubt it.
Re:Yet to be included? (Score:2, Interesting)
That said, I can't see ZFS ever being in the kernel - even licensing problems aside; its a HUGE layering violation. Some say they can do a ZFS without the layering problem; an ambitious project - btrfs [oracle.com] exists to try do exactly that. Of course its nowhere near done (currently it'll oops if the filesystem gets full, among other things) - but its one to keep an eye on.
Re:It's time for Sun (Score:2, Interesting)
I'm talking about kernels vs. kernels. The linux kernel tends to includes substantial functionality not yet available for *BSD.
Although I could as easily talk about distributions vs. distributions; more software is developed on Linux than *BSD and it sometimes takes time/effort to port from Linux to *BSD, so there is more software available to the average end user.
It's notable that these days Linux runs on more platforms than anything else but maybe netbsd, the least advanced (but apparently most portable) flavor of *BSD. Linux runs on 16 bit systems with no MMU (albeit a somewhat hacked up version of the kernel) and it runs on some of the most complex systems on the planet. Linux provides the potential for more hardware than it is possible to get with any *BSD system. And less!
My response can only be "wah wah wah". I'm tired of BSD-types telling everyone else what attitude they should have about software licensing.
Sun claims they want ZFS to be taken up. The GPL has important features which are there for good reasons and which are obviously supported by the Linux community (which would, again, otherwise just go to BSD and shutthefuckup.) If Sun is serious about wanting to see ZFS be taken up, they are going to have to license it accordingly. If they aren't, then they don't. As it is, it's present in FUSE today, so it's there and working, and it should only get faster as both the implementation and FUSE itself are improved. So frankly I don't give a good goddamn regardless. But ultimately if you don't want to listen to whiners, don't listen to them and for dog's sake don't egg them on or you will only create more of what you are complaining about.
I just think you like to complain.
I calls 'em as I sees 'em.
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:3, Interesting)
I am a big fan of Microkernels. I keep hoping that Minix 3 will really start to take off soon. I love the idea of self healing systems and that can really only be done with a Microkernel.
I don't think Vista is slow because of any moves into user-space. I think it is more an issue of memory usage and DRM. Let's face it if you are "managing rights" for all sorts of files that takes CPU cycles. Also if you have to keep hitting swap all the time that will also slow you down.
Interesting (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why not in the kernel? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Legal question (Score:4, Interesting)
Only if you distribute binaries.
There is nothing that stops me from developing and distributing a version of Sun's ZFS such that it works with a Linux kernel. I can do anything I want with GPL code while I have it, including link it with my CCDL patch (and publish said CCDL code under the CCDL license), as long as when I distribute GPL source or binaries, I abide by the terms of that license.
This is why. (Score:3, Interesting)
Sun just recently got a chance to sit down with their lawyers decide how they wanted to license OpenSolaris (Nevada, Solaris 11, whatever), as a whole.
Their lawyers modeled the CDDL on the Mozilla Developer License. They wanted to get the code out there without losing sole control, and to be able to option/exert patent influence on people who got access to the technology.
But unlike AOL/Mozilla, they did not dual license it under the GPL. This probably because they knew that Linux could not incorporate OpenSolaris code at all without violating the GPL and CDDL clauses. This preventing Linux from becoming more competetive with Solaris by means of appropriation (they don't want to hurt their own technology advantage and cannabolize sales of licensed/supported Solaris).
But both camps could really use each other's code. It sounds like upper management at Sun is going to change the license for Solaris (as they have the authority to do so; this is impossible for the Linux community to do effectively) to allow this soon, on the heels of GPL'ing java (which has done wonders for its acceptance in the development community).
Project inertia will guarantee that Linux will be Linux, and Solaris will be Solaris. Sun doesn't have anything to fear. Perhaps they were testing the waters with the initial code release to see what the reaction would be.
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).
Re:Isn't that... (Score:3, Interesting)
You clearly do not understand the word random.
In hindsight, perhaps "arbitrary" would have been a better word.
A patch is structured, and further, contains specific (nonrandom) information on how to transform an input file into a previously created output file. It is, by definition, derived from two input files.
An SSH public keyfile, too, is structured, and further, contains specific (nonrandom) information that facilitates transforming input data into output data.
An SSH public keyfile, however, is still just a few strings of randomly generated characters.
Furthermore, you appear to believe that a derivative work must somehow have structure or purpose similar to that of the original work.
I believe that a derivative work must bear some resemblence to the work from whence it is derived and must actually be a coherent "work" in and of itself. After all, if that were not a requirement, surely any random jumbling of sounds or words that just happened to also be present in another piece of music or literature could be deemed derivative (or vice versa), could it not ?
Personally I find the whole concept of a "derivative work" - pretending for the moment I believe in the concept of "intellectual property" at all - to be forced, counter-intuitive and fundamentally ignorant. A "derivative" work is either so similar to the original that the differences are irrelevant (and they are effectively identical), or it is different enough to stand on its own merits and therefore warrants discrete recognition. Further, since all "works" are influenced in some way by the "works" that have preceded them, surely all "works" are derivative ?
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.
Re:Parts of ZFS already GPLv2'd (Score:3, Interesting)
Who doesn't want his system to crash when a transient hardware error hit non-redundant ZFS kernel code.
Try UnionFS? (Score:2, Interesting)