ZFS on Linux. No, thank you. I'll continue to use ZFS natively under FreeBSD, which is arguably a far better OS for what ZFS users would be wanting anyway. Been using *BSD since the late 90s. Never a real issue short of HW failure. I cannot say the same for the painful times I was forced to use Linux.
ZFS is indeed a lifesaver, but we in the BSD camps have know this for many moons.
Do you commonly find content-free insults to be an effective form of advocacy? I've used (Free|Open)BSD over the same time period and can point to specific areas which were better (e.g. NFS client stability) or worse (e.g. package management, video drivers) compared to Linux, and both would need to be mentioned in the context of specific versions. If you want to do anything more than make people dislike BSD fanboys, try stating something specific and be prepared to back your assertions up with evidence.
Not a fanboy, thank you, just a happy IT pro. We use and prefer BSD and attendant software because we prefer the BSD/CDDL(ZFS)/MIT and similar licenses. The GPL is off-putting for what we do, so we avoid using Linux or other GPL'd software where equivalent BSD (or similar)-licensed software is extant.
This is a relatively useless contribution to the discussion. Given that there are obviously reasons why Linux has been successful while BSDs have seen less popular usage, it must be the case that Linux or its ecosystem offers features not found elsewhere.
Adding ZFS to Ubuntu is a benefit to everybody, and a smug, holier-than-thou attitude really does nothing to further the conversation about the technology.
Nope. Adding a legally licensed copy of ZFS to Ubuntu is a benefit to everybody. Oracle haven't seen fit to do that, and they're the only ones who can.
Sticking a hack-licensing-job into Ubuntu is damaging to the Linux ecosystem, certainly not a benefit.
I do not think it is a benefit to everybody. In fact, I think it will tarnish ZFS as a technology.
ZOL still has some very clunky usability integrations (zpool status vs spare, sudo requirements, device name instabilities etc). I'm running ZOL on production servers, and sometimes it feels like back in the day when I tried to get the first ZFS patchsets against FreeBSD7 to run on my P3 with 1.5GB RAM. Sometimes worse.
The majority of Ubuntu users will not attribute these deficiencies to the ZOL port, but to "ZFS". We will see a lot of "So $XYZ has ZFS, well, I have tried it on Ubuntu and it s".
acdha|10 years ago
bladerunner82|10 years ago
matthewmacleod|10 years ago
Adding ZFS to Ubuntu is a benefit to everybody, and a smug, holier-than-thou attitude really does nothing to further the conversation about the technology.
jra_samba|10 years ago
Sticking a hack-licensing-job into Ubuntu is damaging to the Linux ecosystem, certainly not a benefit.
mioelnir|10 years ago
ZOL still has some very clunky usability integrations (zpool status vs spare, sudo requirements, device name instabilities etc). I'm running ZOL on production servers, and sometimes it feels like back in the day when I tried to get the first ZFS patchsets against FreeBSD7 to run on my P3 with 1.5GB RAM. Sometimes worse.
The majority of Ubuntu users will not attribute these deficiencies to the ZOL port, but to "ZFS". We will see a lot of "So $XYZ has ZFS, well, I have tried it on Ubuntu and it s".