On 18 August 2010 21:49, Joerg Schilling < [email protected]> wrote:
> Bill Longman <[email protected]> wrote: > > > On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote: > > > Clear now, thanks. > > > > > > > > > If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS. > > > > > > > > > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong? > > Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained? > > I was unsure, thats why I asked if I was wrong. My bad. > Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to > > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of > > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with > > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in > > any way--it worked okay. > > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to > the > BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? > > Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL, which is incompatible with GNU GPL, so it cant be distributed with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to FUSE. Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years > ago. > For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the > level > of stability currently seen with ZFS. > > ZFS was announced on 2004. So approximately six year, not ten. Besides, things in computer world do not always work that linearly, you know.
