Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:42:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: > > I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed > > from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this > > thread: > > > >

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote: > [..] > > I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed > from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this >

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote: [..] I'm just found something new in filtered folder by "ZFS" word in RSS feed from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this thread: http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists I'm not check completly

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote: [..] I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this thread: http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists I'm not check completly

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, 2 May 2007 17:03:22 +0200 (CEST) Tomasz Kłoczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Fri, 13 Apr 2007, David R. Litwin wrote: [..] I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this thread:

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, May 02, 2007 at 04:42:47PM +0100, Alan Cox wrote: I'm just found something new in filtered folder by ZFS word in RSS feed from blogs.sun.com and on firs look it may be some continuation of this thread: http://blogs.sun.com/darren/entry/zfs_under_gplv2_already_exists I'm

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > > > Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated > > that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell? > > Certainly

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Thu, Apr 26, 2007 at 10:21:02PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell? Certainly none of

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: > > Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated > that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell? > Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of > indication

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Wed, Apr 18, 2007 at 01:25:19PM -0400, Lennart Sorensen wrote: Does it matter that google's recent report on disk failures indicated that SMART never predicted anything useful as far as they could tell? Certainly none of my drive failures ever had SMART make any kind of indication that

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: > Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced > RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 > with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some >

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: Please do see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming. The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> Please do see: > http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming. The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux. Alan

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Please do see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming. The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to exclude Linux. Alan -

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: Please do see: http://www.opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#patents Which appears to agree with everything I said not what you are claiming. The patent license is strictly tied to their implementation and its derivatives under the CDDL, so specifically acts to

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for access to some bigger

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Lennart Sorensen wrote: On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 10:18:45PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: Of cources it can be true in most cases (probably for some more advanced RAID controlers). Few weeks ago I perform some basic test on Dell 2950 with 8x73GB SAS disk .. just as for kill time (waiting for

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > > On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > >> [..] > >> > Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of > the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2 This is not accurate. As far back as I can easily check, the kernel's COPYING file has said: Also note that the only valid version of the

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > [..] > > >> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was > >> allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another > >> license which will allow use

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Ricardo Correia wrote: > That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on > non-replicated pools for a long time already. Just a clarification, ZFS not only detects metadata corruption through the use of checksums but, since it keeps 2-3 copies of each metadata block

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ? kloczek Because

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Florian Weimer wrote: > > > I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that > page is rather current. 8-/ That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on non-replicated pools for a long time

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

* Theodore Tso: > we can continue trying to innovate around better filesystem and LVM > storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase the ZFS tail > lights. Indeed. Here's a gem from the official ZFS FAQ: | What can I do if ZFS panics on every boot? | | ZFS is designed to survive

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:22:19PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: > Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS > code > cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I > suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:48, Alan Cox wrote: > > So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking > > some law ? > > Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. > > The real test of

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: > > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > >> Realy can't or don't want (?) > >> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > >> allow if not

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > [..] > > > Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What > > he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are > > the only ones who can decide whether or

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 4/17/07, Alan Cox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking > some law ? Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. The real test of whether

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> > That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of > > mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back > > to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient. > > CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was > allways taken as "piece of cake". Why in case switching to another license What planet do you come from I wonder ? On Earth (where most of us usually reside) the consensus of the kernel developers and the legal people

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Xavier Bestel wrote: >> That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is >> an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the >> GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in >> combination with code under other licenses. > > You are

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Realy can't or don't want (?) So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ?

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to think like "anything

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

linux-os (Dick Johnson) skrev: > if you never look at somebody else's' > implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent. Oh, it would be a beautiful world in which this was true! Michal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in the body

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that > the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other The CDDL is more restrictive in numerous ways, and in the Solaris case has an obnoxious requirement to use the US joke courts for any legal decisions

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:06 +0100, Ricardo Correia wrote: > Alan Cox wrote: > > The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but > > Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they > > can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote: >>> The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense. >> >> I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed. >> >> I suggest the first thing you do is

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote: > On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: >> So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of >> the file-system. > > I didn't know that was that simple, great ! > So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: > So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of > the file-system. I didn't know that was that simple, great ! So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive "we") Xav - To unsubscribe from this list:

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

El Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: > Realy can't or don't want (?) Relicensing the whole kernel under the CDDL just to be able to get ZFS is not going to happen (I bet that rewriting ZFS is easier than relicensing a large piece of software

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was > licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under > license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to > think like "anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux" (?)

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: > The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but > Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they > can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with > other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking > some law ? Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote: > > The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense. > > I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed. > > I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and > convince them

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:57 +0400 Nikita Danilov <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Ignatich writes: > > You might want to look at this discussion: > > http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-April/027041.html > > Licenses involved cover file system _code_, rather than storage format

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: > On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: > [..] > >Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What > >he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are > >the only ones who can decide whether

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > Realy can't or don't want (?) > So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for > allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking > some law ? Everyone who holds any copyright over

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: [..] Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL license, and more importantly, to give a

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 17/04/07, Miklos Szeredi <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is mostly academic. Oh? I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads of NTFS-3G were end users.(*) Maybe I was wrong though. Thanks for the

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

> > FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace - > > it has its uses. > > Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is > mostly academic. Oh? I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads of NTFS-3G were end users.(*)

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 15/04/07, Jesper Juhl <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 14/04/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Before I go on, let me appologise. I don't really know what I hope to accomplish, beyond trying to garner thoughts (and support?) for the topic. Essentially: I want to use Linux and

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 15/04/07, Jesper Juhl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On 14/04/07, David R. Litwin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Before I go on, let me appologise. I don't really know what I hope to accomplish, beyond trying to garner thoughts (and support?) for the topic. Essentially: I want to use Linux and ZFS.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

FUSE is nice for trying out new and interresting ideas in userspace - it has its uses. Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is mostly academic. Oh? I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads of NTFS-3G were end users.(*) Maybe I

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 17/04/07, Miklos Szeredi [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Yes, but it is not really for the end-user. To paraphrase another, it is mostly academic. Oh? I thought those ~10,000 downloads of SSHFS and ~200,000 downloads of NTFS-3G were end users.(*) Maybe I was wrong though. Thanks for the

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to think like anything arond Linux must evolve .. but not Linux (?) Why

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

El Tue, 17 Apr 2007 15:47:32 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko [EMAIL PROTECTED] escribió: Realy can't or don't want (?) Relicensing the whole kernel under the CDDL just to be able to get ZFS is not going to happen (I bet that rewriting ZFS is easier than relicensing a large piece of software with

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Xavier Bestel wrote: On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of the file-system. I didn't know that was that simple, great ! So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive we)

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 10:59 -0400, linux-os (Dick Johnson) wrote: So, what needs to be done is simply find out the specifications of the file-system. I didn't know that was that simple, great ! So, what do we wait ? (I love that abusive we) Xav - To unsubscribe from this list: send

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 2007-04-17 at 16:06 +0100, Ricardo Correia wrote: Alan Cox wrote: The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote: The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense. I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed. I suggest the first thing you do is contact the

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

What I meant in saying the CDDL is less restrictive than the GPL is that the CDDL can be freely used in conjunction with code under other The CDDL is more restrictive in numerous ways, and in the Solaris case has an obnoxious requirement to use the US joke courts for any legal decisions (which

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

linux-os (Dick Johnson) skrev: if you never look at somebody else's' implementation details, you certainly should not be violating a patent. Oh, it would be a beautiful world in which this was true! Michal - To unsubscribe from this list: send the line unsubscribe linux-kernel in the body of a

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, John Anthony Kazos Jr. wrote: And/or why Linux code licensing can't evolve ? Seems when Linux code was licensed noone was thinking about case like interraction with code under license like CDDL so why now it can be corrected and still many people try to think like anything

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Xavier Bestel wrote: That is not quite true. They made ZFS available under the CDDL, which is an OSI-approved open-source license that is *less* restrictive than the GPL. The CDDL doesn't prevent anyone from using the ZFS code in combination with code under other licenses. You are wrong.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license What planet do you come from I wonder ? On Earth (where most of us usually reside) the consensus of the kernel developers and the legal people

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 4/17/07, Alan Cox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ? Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. The real test of whether Sun

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

That's not evolution; it's de-evolution. Linux morphing to some sort of mentally-damaged pseudo-proprietary licence would be like switching back to a feudal society where 50 was considered unbelievably ancient. CDDL is OSI aproved. Did you realy want to say by above something like CDDL

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 09:47:32 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: [..] Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are the only ones who can decide whether or not to

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:46:38 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Realy can't or don't want (?) So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Matthew Garrett wrote: On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Realy can't or don't want (?) So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ?

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Alan Cox wrote: The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but Solaris is what they do to license it - they've patented everything they can, and made the code available only under licenses incompatible with other OS products. Their intent is quite clear, and quite sad.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 02:54:32AM -0400, David R. Litwin wrote: The license that protects the code we write is far from nonsense. I know. In the end, this is the reason this topic is being discussed. I suggest the first thing you do is contact the ZFS developers and convince them to

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Sun, 15 Apr 2007 16:44:57 +0400 Nikita Danilov [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Ignatich writes: You might want to look at this discussion: http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/2007-April/027041.html Licenses involved cover file system _code_, rather than storage format that is

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: Realy can't or don't want (?) So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ? Everyone who holds any copyright over any

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:48, Alan Cox wrote: So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ? Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. The real test of whether

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: [..] Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are the only ones who can decide whether or not to release ZFS under a GPL license, and more importantly, to give a

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 03:47:32PM +0200, Tomasz K?oczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Theodore Tso wrote: [..] Well, that was totally useless answer from the ZFS developers. What he should have told you is to contact Sun management, since they are the only ones who can decide whether or not

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

So who is responsible for potential changing Linux code licensing for allow if not incorporate CDDL code correct interraction without breaking some law ? Every single contributor, individually. Which won't happen. The real test of whether Sun were serious about ZFS being anywhere but

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 12:22:19PM -0400, Daniel Hazelton wrote: Nope. You've just ignored it when it was explained *why* the existing ZFS code cannot be simply be ported to Linux. If you really need ZFS on linux, might I suggest that you port the code on your own and maintain whatever

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

* Theodore Tso: we can continue trying to innovate around better filesystem and LVM storage technologies, as opposed to trying to chase the ZFS tail lights. Indeed. Here's a gem from the official ZFS FAQ: | What can I do if ZFS panics on every boot? | | ZFS is designed to survive

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Florian Weimer wrote: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#zfspanic I keep hoping that this FAQ entry is outdated, but the date on that page is rather current. 8-/ That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on non-replicated pools for a long time already.

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license which will allow use CDDL code just it is most importand contr argument ? kloczek Because *EVERY*

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Ricardo Correia wrote: That FAQ entry is outdated, ZFS can recover from metadata corruption on non-replicated pools for a long time already. Just a clarification, ZFS not only detects metadata corruption through the use of checksums but, since it keeps 2-3 copies of each metadata block on-disk

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another license which will allow use CDDL code just it

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

After the discussions that took place back around the time of the release of the first draft of GPLv3 it was decided to lock Linux to *ONLY* GPLv2 This is not accurate. As far back as I can easily check, the kernel's COPYING file has said: Also note that the only valid version of the GPL

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways taken as piece of cake. Why in case switching to another

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Tuesday 17 April 2007 18:12:17 David Lang wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: On Tuesday 17 April 2007 15:58:09 Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Daniel Hazelton wrote: [..] Why on discussion about switching to GPL v3 Linux code this argument was allways

Re: Repair-driven file system design (was Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 03:34:42PM -0700, Valerie Henson wrote: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > > On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > > > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach. > > > > Agreed, that's one method

Repair-driven file system design (was Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea)

On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 01:07:05PM +1000, David Chinner wrote: > On Sun, Apr 15, 2007 at 08:50:25PM -0400, Rik van Riel wrote: > > > IMHO chunkfs could provide a much more promising approach. > > Agreed, that's one method of compartmentalising the problem. Agreed, the chunkfs design is only

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> Unfortunatelle Latency is critical for a number of critical applications >> like databases or file based transaction systems (mail, news) - mainly the >> users of fsync(). > > Whether you mix audio in userspace or kernel does not impact latency - > you

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Diego Calleja wrote: El Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:46:50 +0200 (CEST), Tomasz Kłoczko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> escribió: also some other interestig numbers can be founnd on: http://milek.blogspot.com/2006/08/hw-raid-vs-zfs-software-raid-part-ii.html So software raid can be faster

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

Bernd Eckenfels wrote: > In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: >> I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of >> audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of >> latencies; [...] >> You were talking about throughput of storage systems, for which

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On Mon, 16 April 2007 17:46:50 +0200, Tomasz Kłoczko wrote: > On Mon, 16 Apr 2007, Christoph Hellwig wrote: > > >Numbers, please. So far in all interesting benchmarks it actually > >was slower. But when they're faster than XFS somewhere I'd defintly > >be interesting in looking at why this is

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

On 4/16/07, Bernd Eckenfels <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of > audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of > latencies; and that's exactly the major point where I

Re: ZFS with Linux: An Open Plea

In article <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> you wrote: > I meant that the central requirement on the design and implementation of > audio subsystems is an (ideally guaranteed) bounded maximum of > latencies; and that's exactly the major point where I heard that there > are problems with ALSA driver components

  1   2   >