[zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS

> # zfs create pool raidz d1 … d8 Surely you didn't create the zfs pool on top of SVM metadevices? If so, that's not useful; the zfs pool should be on top of raw devices. Also, because VxFS is extent based (if I understand correctly), not unlike how MVS manages disk space I might add, _it ought_

[zfs-discuss] Re: storage type for ZFS

Well, no; his quote did say "software or hardware". The theory is apparently that ZFS can do better at detecting (and with redundancy, correcting) errors if it's dealing with raw hardware, or as nearly so as possible. Most SANs _can_ hand out raw LUNs as well as RAID LUNs, the folks that run them

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS

Anton B. Rang wrote: Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices. I think a tool that does file system testing will get you better data. OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to reflect Oracle performance when configured for raw devices?

[zfs-discuss] Re: Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS

> Second, VDBench is great for testing raw block i/o devices. > I think a tool that does file system testing will get you > better data. OTOH, shouldn't a tool that measures raw device performance be reasonable to reflect Oracle performance when configured for raw devices? I don't know the curre

[zfs-discuss] Re: Outdated FAQ entry

There are still some cases of corrupted pools that cause panics at boot (see some of the threads from the past few weeks), so the FAQ probably needs to stay for now. This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@o

[zfs-discuss] Re: Update/append of compressed files

Remember that ZFS is a copy-on-write file system. ZFS, much like UFS, uses indirect blocks to point to file contents. However, unlike UFS (which supports only 8K and 1K blocks, and 1K blocks only at the end of a file), the underlying stored data blocks can be of different sizes. An uncompressed

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17-Apr-07, at 10:54 PM, Wee Yeh Tan wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be > > released under a Licens

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be > > released under a License which _is_ GPL > > compatible? > > So why do yo

[zfs-discuss] ZFS status -v and status -x are not in sync

SUNW-MSG-ID: ZFS-8000-CS, TYPE: Fault, VER: 1, SEVERITY: Major EVENT-TIME: Tue Apr 17 12:25:49 PDT 2007 PLATFORM: SUNW,Sun-Fire-880, CSN: -, HOSTNAME: twinkie SOURCE: zfs-diagnosis, REV: 1.0 EVENT-ID: ce624168-b522-e35b-d4e8-a8e4b9169ad1 DESC: A ZFS pool failed to open. Refer to http://sun.com/msg

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

Shawn Walker wrote: > On 18/04/07, Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> Rich Teer, >> >> I have a perfect app for the masses. >> >> A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV >> and audio setup. >> >> I would think the average person would want >> t

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 18/04/07, Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Rich Teer, I have a perfect app for the masses. A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV and audio setup. I would think the average person would want to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:59:53 PM, you wrote: DM> Robert Milkowski wrote: >> Hello Dan, >> >> Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: >> > How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its > final size before compression. Because you are NOT

Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. DM> I guess

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Hello Dan, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 9:44:45 PM, you wrote: >>> How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its >>> final size before compression. >> >> Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as >> they get written to disk. DM> I guess this impl

Re: [zfs-discuss] Outdated FAQ entry

Hello Ricardo, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:15:33 PM, you wrote: RC> Hi, RC> The following FAQ entry seems to be outdated or at least misleading: RC> http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#zfspanic RC> I believe this has been fixed since the introduction of ditto blocks, RC> which keeps re

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Erblichs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Joerg Shilling, > > Putting the license issues aside for a moment. I was trying to point people to the fact that the biggest problems are technical problems and that the license discussion was done the wrong way. > If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Erblichs wrote: > So, if the license issues are removed, I am sure > that ZFS could be ported over to Linux. It is just > time and effort... I believe you are right, there seems to be a lot of interest in porting ZFS to the Linux kernel. The main problem is, no doubt, the license

[zfs-discuss] Outdated FAQ entry

Hi, The following FAQ entry seems to be outdated or at least misleading: http://opensolaris.org/os/community/zfs/faq/#zfspanic I believe this has been fixed since the introduction of ditto blocks, which keeps redundant blocks of metadata (at least that's what I think the FAQ author was referring

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 18-Apr-07, at 4:26 AM, Erblichs wrote: Toby Thain, I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the different file objects or ... before this becomes a issue. :) In the meantime I'll just use filesystem

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

Rich Teer, I have a perfect app for the masses. A Hi-Def Video/ audio server for the hi-def TV and audio setup. I would think the average person would want to have access to 1000s of DVDs / CDs within a small box versus taking up the full

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Erblichs wrote: Whose job is it to "clean" or declare for removal kernel sources that "do not work"? not the people on *this* list, IMO. Michael -- Michael Schuster Recursion, n.: see 'Recursion' ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-disc

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS and Linux

Joerg Shilling, Putting the license issues aside for a moment. If their is "INTEREST" in ZFS within Linux, should a small Linux group be formed to break down ZFS in easily portable sections and non-portable sections. And get a real-time/effort assessment

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for > desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop > machine?!") doesn't get it. Well, for many of tho

Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

How can this work? With compressed data, its hard to predict its final size before compression. Because you are NOT compressing the file only compressing the blocks as they get written to disk. I guess this implies that the compression only can save integral numbers of blocks. _

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Toby Thain, I am sure someone will divise a method of subdividing the FS and run a background fsck and/or checksums on the different file objects or ... before this becomes a issue. :) Mitchell Erblich - Toby Thain wrote: > > >

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Group, Did Joerg Schilling bring up a bigger issue within this discussion thread? > And it seems that you missunderstand the way the Linux kernel is developed. > If _you_ started a ZFS project for Linux, _you_ would need to maintain it too > or otherwise it would not be kept up to

[zfs-discuss] Re: Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Does any one know how Veritas implemented vxfs and vxvm on Linux? They must have the same problem because vxfs and vxvm is not GPLed as far as I know. /Ove > Joerg Schilling wrote: > > "David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > >> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrot

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17-Apr-07, at 2:00 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On 4/17/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OS X tends to effectively elide the "book larning" part of using UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship until "you don't even know it's there". But then, I have helped peopl

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:00:00PM -0400, Rayson Ho wrote: > Apple is integrating DTrace too, and yet I don't see more than 10% of > the Mac users writing "D" programs. But 100% of MacOS users might end up using DTrace without knowing it. ___ zfs-discuss

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 4/17/07, Toby Thain <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: OS X tends to effectively elide the "book larning" part of using UNIX. I don't think ZFS would be any exception - they won't ship until "you don't even know it's there". But then, I have helped people "fixing" their computers by emptying the rec

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

this port was done in the case of QFS how come they managed to release a QFS for linux? On 4/17/07, Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Joerg Schilling wrote: > "David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > >> On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >>> On 4/17/07, David R.

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17-Apr-07, at 1:24 PM, Rayson Ho wrote: On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!") doesn't get it. Well, for many of those who

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17-Apr-07, at 1:08 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive t

Re: [zfs-discuss] Testing of UFS, VxFS and ZFS

filebench for example On 4/17/07, Torrey McMahon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Tony Galway wrote: > > I had previously undertaken a benchmark that pits "out of box" > performance of UFS via SVM, VxFS and ZFS but was waylaid due to some > outstanding availability issues in ZFS. These have been taken

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 4/17/07, Rich Teer <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!") doesn't get it. Well, for many of those who find it hard to upgrade Windows, I guess you wil

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On Apr 17, 2007, at 10:03 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assured

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17-Apr-07, at 12:15 PM, Chad Leigh -- Shire.Net LLC wrote: On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: ... I belive that ZFS definitely belongs on a desktop, Apple (and I) assuredly agree with you. I would agree as well. With th

[zfs-discuss] Drobo

Here's another product which has removed the hassle out of disk management: I wonder if they (Data Robotics) will make the Drobo work with ZFS once Leopard is out (since it supports HFS+)? ---8<--- Data Robotics has just introduced Drobo, the world’

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On Tue, 17 Apr 2007, Toby Thain wrote: > The killer feature for me is checksumming and self-healing. Same here. I think anyone who dismisses ZFS as being inappropriate for desktop use ("who needs access to Petabytes of space in their desktop machine?!") doesn't get it. (A close 2nd for me perso

Re: [zfs-discuss] adding a disk

tester wrote: Hi, I would like to know what changes are made to the storage disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there way to know if storage is part of ZFS just by examing any structure of the storage? In

Re: [zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On Apr 17, 2007, at 7:47 AM, Toby Thain wrote: On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's lea

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs question as to sizes

Eric Schrock <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote on 04/16/2007 05:29:05 PM: > On Mon, Apr 16, 2007 at 05:13:37PM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Why it was considered a valid data column in its current state is > > anyone's guess. > > > > This column is precise and valid. It represents the am

Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Hi folks On Tuesday 17 April 2007 11:49, Darren J Moffat wrote: > Leonardo Francalanci wrote: > > Hi, > > > > regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is > > udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and > > then re-compressed? Or only the affec

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On Tue, Apr 17, 2007 at 01:22:28AM -0700, Erik Trimble wrote: > Also, note that kernel modules are considered part of the kernel and > covered by the derivative portion of the GPL, at least in the eyes of > most Linux folks. ATI and nVidia get around this issue by producing a > GPL'd kernel mod

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That "l

[zfs-discuss] Re: Puzzling ZFS behavior with COMPRESS option

Did you find a resoltion to this issue? This message posted from opensolaris.org ___ zfs-discuss mailing list zfs-discuss@opensolaris.org http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

[zfs-discuss] ZFS on the desktop

On 17-Apr-07, at 8:33 AM, Robert Milkowski wrote: Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH> While ZFS is nice

Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Jerome Haynes-Smith wrote: regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and then re-compressed? Or only the affected blocks are uncompressed and then recompressed? ZFS does NOT compress files. It compr

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17-Apr-07, at 10:56 AM, James C. McPherson wrote: Toby Thain wrote: It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007 without ZFS dominat

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Hello Toby, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 3:39:39 PM, you wrote: >> >> It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks >> for not >> liking ZFS. TT> I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. TT> How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007 TT> without ZF

Re: [zfs-discuss] zfs send/receive question

Chris, This option will be available in the upcoming Solaris 10 release, a few months from now. We'll send out a listing of the new ZFS features around that time. Cindy Krzys wrote: Ah, ok, not a problem, do you know Cindy when next Solaris Update is going to be released by SUN? Yes, I am run

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

It seems that there are other reasons for the Linux kernel folks for not liking ZFS. I certainly don't understand why they ignore it. How can one have a "Storage and File Systems Workshop" in 2007 without ZFS dominating the agenda?? http://lwn.net/Articles/226351/ That "long fscks" shou

Re[2]: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Hello Rayson, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:50:41 AM, you wrote: RH> On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> > How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? >> >> Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) RH> While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop u

Re: [zfs-discuss] storage type for ZFS

Hello tester, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 11:09:34 AM, you wrote: t> The paragraph below is from ZFS admin guide t> Traditional Volume Management t> As described in “ZFS Pooled Storage” on page 18, ZFS eliminates the need for a separate volume t> manager. ZFS operates on raw devices, so it is poss

Re: [zfs-discuss] adding a disk

Hello tester, Tuesday, April 17, 2007, 10:46:52 AM, you wrote: t> Hi, t> I would like to know what changes are made to the storage t> disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to t> relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there t> way to know if storage is p

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17/04/07, Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: And, frankly, I can think of several very good reasons why Sun would NOT want to release a ZFS under the GPL Not to mention the knock-on effects of those already using ZFS (apple, BSD) who would be adversely affected by a GPL license. -- Ra

Re: [zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Leonardo Francalanci wrote: Hi, regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and then re-compressed? Or only the affected blocks are uncompressed and then recompressed? ZFS does NOT compress files.

[zfs-discuss] Update/append of compressed files

Hi, regarding ZFS compression method: what happens when a compressed file is udpated/appended? Is it ALL un-compressed first, updated/appended and then re-compressed? Or only the affected blocks are uncompressed and then recompressed? And, what happens exactly when a portion of a compressed

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Erik Trimble <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > This is obviously a missunderstanding. You do not need to make > > ZFS _part_ of the Linux kernel as id is some kind of driver. > > > > Using ZFS with Linux would be "mere aggregation" (see GPL text). > > > > Jörg > > > > > No, the general consensus a

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

"David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > If you refer to the licensing, yes. Coding-wise, I have no idea exept > to say that I would be VERY surprised if ZFS can not be ported to > Linux, especially since there already > exists the FUSE project. So if you are interested in this project, I w

[zfs-discuss] storage type for ZFS

The paragraph below is from ZFS admin guide Traditional Volume Management As described in “ZFS Pooled Storage” on page 18, ZFS eliminates the need for a separate volume manager. ZFS operates on raw devices, so it is possible to create a storage pool comprised of logical volumes, either software

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > How about asking Microsoft to change Shared Source first?? Let's leave ms out of this, eh? :-) While ZFS is nice, I don't think it is a must for most desktop users. For servers and power users, yes. But most (over 90% of world populatio

[zfs-discuss] adding a disk

Hi, I would like to know what changes are made to the storage disk/lun/slice when it is added to a zfs pool? I am trying to relate to VxVM where the VTOC is changed. In otherwords, is there way to know if storage is part of ZFS just by examing any structure of the storage? Some documentation

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Joerg Schilling wrote: "David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17/04/07, Rayson Ho <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. > > On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so tha

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17/04/07, Joerg Schilling <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: "David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I tried. > > It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing > issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not > want this thread to d

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

As Joerg noted (and I've looked at fairly extensively), the VFS layer in Linux is radically different than either FreeBSD or Solaris, and ZFS would require extensive reworking before being implemented - the port is nowhere near as simple as the one from Solaris to FreeBSD. Also, note that kern

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So that it can be used directly with the Linux kernel. On the flip side, why shouldn't it be? Do you want to spam *EVERY* open source project asking to change the license to GPL so that you can use it with Linux?? How about asking Microso

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

"David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be > > > released under a License which _is_ GPL > > > compatible? > > > > So wh

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 17/04/07, Wee Yeh Tan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be > released under a License which _is_ GPL > compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license?

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

"David R. Litwin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I tried. > > It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing > issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not > want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this > thre

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

On 4/17/07, David R. Litwin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: So, it comes to this: Why, precisely, can ZFS not be released under a License which _is_ GPL compatible? So why do you think should it be released under a GPL compatible license? -- Just me, Wire ... __

Re: [zfs-discuss] Re: ZFS for Linux (NO LISCENCE talk, please)

Well, I tried. It seems that a Linux port is simply impossible, due purely to licensing issues. I know I said I'd not bring up licensing, mainly because I did not want this thread to devolve like the other one; and because I wanted this thread to speak of the technical difficulties; but due to my