Feature changed by: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) Feature #311030, revision 5 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') + #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) + Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030

Feature changed by: Di Pe (dipe) Feature #311030, revision 8 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. #3: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-22 15:14:59) (reply to #1) where the money is? Most storage people that like Linux see it this way: ZFS is the only reason Solaris is still of any use. If you are a Linux shop you want to avoid having to support Solaris as well. With opensolaris gone people are looking for alternatives for using ZFS. Have you seen the smashing success of nexenta.com which is opensolaris with debian userland tools? sure the current implementation of ZFS for Linux may not be rock solid yet, but neither is btrfs and that can be selected in yast (with a big warning). Why not doing the same for ZFS? + #4: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-28 19:02:27) + Currently, the Solaris porting layer does not build on openSUSE 11.3. + They are going to try it out and make sure it will run on openSUSE. https://groups.google.com/group/kqstor-zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/b909... + They also said that they have not had a single request to support SLE or + openSUSE. If you want openSUSE support please drop a note google groups + and things may go quicker. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030

Feature changed by: Gavin Rozzi (grozzi) Feature #311030, revision 10 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Unconfirmed Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. #3: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-22 15:14:59) (reply to #1) where the money is? Most storage people that like Linux see it this way: ZFS is the only reason Solaris is still of any use. If you are a Linux shop you want to avoid having to support Solaris as well. With opensolaris gone people are looking for alternatives for using ZFS. Have you seen the smashing success of nexenta.com which is opensolaris with debian userland tools? sure the current implementation of ZFS for Linux may not be rock solid yet, but neither is btrfs and that can be selected in yast (with a big warning). Why not doing the same for ZFS? #4: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-28 19:02:27) Currently, the Solaris porting layer does not build on openSUSE 11.3. They are going to try it out and make sure it will run on openSUSE. https://groups.google.com/group/kqstor-zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/b909... They also said that they have not had a single request to support SLE or openSUSE. If you want openSUSE support please drop a note google groups and things may go quicker. #5: Star Yang (net_walker) (2011-05-29 04:37:55) I am a home user and I am eager to look forwarding to ZFS in Linux. I have a lot data on my hands.(About 10TB so far) I need a safety and expandable and easy and lowcost solution for storage. I also ever downloaded solaris 10 from SUN web site. But it do not suit home-user. It can't be installed via my wireless keyboard and mouse. I had to buy a new wired keyboard-mouse suit to install it. And then I found it can't recognize my network card and can't auto config my network setting. + #6: Gavin Rozzi (grozzi) (2011-07-14 04:19:42) (reply to #5) + I agree, I as a home user tried Solaris 11 Express, and it's just not + for consumers. One of the things that did draw me there was the ZFS + filesystem. I found it to be great when using both large and normal + sized disks, and I too eagerly wait for Linux/openSUSE support of it. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030

Feature changed by: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) Feature #311030, revision 12 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Rejected by Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) reject date: 2011-07-19 11:29:08 reject reason: See comments. Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. #3: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-22 15:14:59) (reply to #1) where the money is? Most storage people that like Linux see it this way: ZFS is the only reason Solaris is still of any use. If you are a Linux shop you want to avoid having to support Solaris as well. With opensolaris gone people are looking for alternatives for using ZFS. Have you seen the smashing success of nexenta.com which is opensolaris with debian userland tools? sure the current implementation of ZFS for Linux may not be rock solid yet, but neither is btrfs and that can be selected in yast (with a big warning). Why not doing the same for ZFS? #4: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-28 19:02:27) Currently, the Solaris porting layer does not build on openSUSE 11.3. They are going to try it out and make sure it will run on openSUSE. https://groups.google.com/group/kqstor-zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/b909... They also said that they have not had a single request to support SLE or openSUSE. If you want openSUSE support please drop a note google groups and things may go quicker. #5: Star Yang (net_walker) (2011-05-29 04:37:55) I am a home user and I am eager to look forwarding to ZFS in Linux. I have a lot data on my hands.(About 10TB so far) I need a safety and expandable and easy and lowcost solution for storage. I also ever downloaded solaris 10 from SUN web site. But it do not suit home-user. It can't be installed via my wireless keyboard and mouse. I had to buy a new wired keyboard-mouse suit to install it. And then I found it can't recognize my network card and can't auto config my network setting. #6: Gavin Rozzi (grozzi) (2011-07-14 04:19:42) (reply to #5) I agree, I as a home user tried Solaris 11 Express, and it's just not for consumers. One of the things that did draw me there was the ZFS filesystem. I found it to be great when using both large and normal sized disks, and I too eagerly wait for Linux/openSUSE support of it. #7: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-19 11:30:15) With Oracle as owner of ZFS and the legal problems around it (check http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066), we cannot include it. And we would only include it if the kernel community accepts it as part of the kernel. + #8: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-25 15:21:59) (reply to #7) + One more comment: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/06/uptake-of-native-linux-zfs-p... + Note: This does not apply to zfs-fuse - but using zfs through FUSE is nothing + you want to do for high-performance access. -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030

Feature changed by: Di Pe (dipe) Feature #311030, revision 14 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Rejected by Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) reject date: 2011-07-19 11:29:08 reject reason: See comments. Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ + Update: kqinfotech.com is no longer working on the ZFS posix layer. + Instead Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory offers the entire ZFS + stack: http://zfsonlinux.org/ (http://zfsonlinux.org/) Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. #3: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-22 15:14:59) (reply to #1) where the money is? Most storage people that like Linux see it this way: ZFS is the only reason Solaris is still of any use. If you are a Linux shop you want to avoid having to support Solaris as well. With opensolaris gone people are looking for alternatives for using ZFS. Have you seen the smashing success of nexenta.com which is opensolaris with debian userland tools? sure the current implementation of ZFS for Linux may not be rock solid yet, but neither is btrfs and that can be selected in yast (with a big warning). Why not doing the same for ZFS? #4: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-28 19:02:27) Currently, the Solaris porting layer does not build on openSUSE 11.3. They are going to try it out and make sure it will run on openSUSE. https://groups.google.com/group/kqstor-zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/b909... They also said that they have not had a single request to support SLE or openSUSE. If you want openSUSE support please drop a note google groups and things may go quicker. #5: Star Yang (net_walker) (2011-05-29 04:37:55) I am a home user and I am eager to look forwarding to ZFS in Linux. I have a lot data on my hands.(About 10TB so far) I need a safety and expandable and easy and lowcost solution for storage. I also ever downloaded solaris 10 from SUN web site. But it do not suit home-user. It can't be installed via my wireless keyboard and mouse. I had to buy a new wired keyboard-mouse suit to install it. And then I found it can't recognize my network card and can't auto config my network setting. #6: Gavin Rozzi (grozzi) (2011-07-14 04:19:42) (reply to #5) I agree, I as a home user tried Solaris 11 Express, and it's just not for consumers. One of the things that did draw me there was the ZFS filesystem. I found it to be great when using both large and normal sized disks, and I too eagerly wait for Linux/openSUSE support of it. #7: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-19 11:30:15) With Oracle as owner of ZFS and the legal problems around it (check http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066), we cannot include it. And we would only include it if the kernel community accepts it as part of the kernel. #8: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-25 15:21:59) (reply to #7) One more comment: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/06/uptake-of-native-linux-zfs-p... Note: This does not apply to zfs-fuse - but using zfs through FUSE is nothing you want to do for high-performance access. #9: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-07-26 14:03:12) AJ, Yes, ZFS cannot be compiled as part of the kernel because of a license restriction. The restriction lies probably more within the GPL rather than the CDDL. (The CDDL does not seem to have an issue with BSD compiling and distributing ZFS as core part of the OS) You are quoting a kerneltrap article from a few years ago and one arstechnica from last year. I just wanted to clarify that these articles are talking about different things. The first is about merging the ZFS code into the Linux Kernel and the second one is about the approach Lawrence Livermore is taking: They use a kernel module to satisfy the GPL license requirements. The Meister himself suggests that distributing binary modules with the kernel is reasonable (though not his preferred way of doing things): ------------------------------------------------ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html "It would be rather preposterous to call the Andrew FileSystem a 'derived work' of Linux, for example, so I think it's perfectly OK to have a AFS module, for example." -- Linus Torvalds "If somebody wants to port his SVR4 driver to Linux but doesn't want to GPL it, I feel that he should have the right to do that, using modules" -- Linus Torvalds ------------------------------------------------- Now it would be resonable for openSUSE to say this is not what we want in a truly open distro. Then let's put it in the non-oss repository but still support it officially. All I would be asking is that a kernel update would also trigger a ZFS update so a kernel update does not break ZFS. In a couple of months the Livermore implementation will probably be mature enough to be added to SLE. I am sure your Enterprise customers would *love* this feature (ask them if they plan to deply BTRFS is the next couple of years). My staff is always joking: SLES is like openSUSE, you just pay money and get fewer packages and call it Enterprise. (OK SLES has many other benefits...but you get the point) Any chance we can make this happen ? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030

Feature changed by: Guido Berhörster (gberh) Feature #311030, revision 16 Title: Add the new ZFS file system Kernel module openSUSE Distribution: Rejected by Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) reject date: 2011-07-19 11:29:08 reject reason: See comments. Priority Requester: Important Requested by: Di Pe (dipe) Partner organization: openSUSE.org Description: This is very cool, ZFS will be available on Linux in a few days and it will have decent performance. http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=linux_kqzfs_benchmarks&num=1 http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/ Update: kqinfotech.com is no longer working on the ZFS posix layer. Instead Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory offers the entire ZFS stack: http://zfsonlinux.org/ (http://zfsonlinux.org/) Business case (Partner benefit): openSUSE.org: * ZFS is an Enterprise level file system that many poeple trust with large amounts of data (>100TB) * ZFS is much easier to use than the combination of linux RAID, LVM and EXT4 * ZFS supports checksumming which prevents bit rot. * ZFS supports compression and deduplication * strong support for ZFS will drive new users to openSUSE * Hardware RAID Controllers are adding a layer between OS and hard drives that can be hard to monitor with linux tools. * BTRFS is not yet ready today (it does not support RAID5 and is lacking many other features) * Ubuntu server will have it. Why would you not want ZFS? Discussion: #1: Jan Engelhardt (jengelh) (2011-01-10 02:54:26) Why one would not want ZFS? Because it has only seen serious use on Solaris, because that is where the money is. So excuse if I trust Linux implementations of ZFS only as much as the current btrfs. (And just because you did mention it: Ubuntu having something is not a meaningful metric. If anything, it's an indication of what not to do - think of 'startup') #2: Jimmy Berry (boombatower) (2011-01-10 03:46:37) (reply to #1) Amen to Ubuntu not being a metric. #3: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-22 15:14:59) (reply to #1) where the money is? Most storage people that like Linux see it this way: ZFS is the only reason Solaris is still of any use. If you are a Linux shop you want to avoid having to support Solaris as well. With opensolaris gone people are looking for alternatives for using ZFS. Have you seen the smashing success of nexenta.com which is opensolaris with debian userland tools? sure the current implementation of ZFS for Linux may not be rock solid yet, but neither is btrfs and that can be selected in yast (with a big warning). Why not doing the same for ZFS? #4: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-01-28 19:02:27) Currently, the Solaris porting layer does not build on openSUSE 11.3. They are going to try it out and make sure it will run on openSUSE. https://groups.google.com/group/kqstor-zfs-discuss/browse_thread/thread/b909... They also said that they have not had a single request to support SLE or openSUSE. If you want openSUSE support please drop a note google groups and things may go quicker. #5: Star Yang (net_walker) (2011-05-29 04:37:55) I am a home user and I am eager to look forwarding to ZFS in Linux. I have a lot data on my hands.(About 10TB so far) I need a safety and expandable and easy and lowcost solution for storage. I also ever downloaded solaris 10 from SUN web site. But it do not suit home-user. It can't be installed via my wireless keyboard and mouse. I had to buy a new wired keyboard-mouse suit to install it. And then I found it can't recognize my network card and can't auto config my network setting. #6: Gavin Rozzi (grozzi) (2011-07-14 04:19:42) (reply to #5) I agree, I as a home user tried Solaris 11 Express, and it's just not for consumers. One of the things that did draw me there was the ZFS filesystem. I found it to be great when using both large and normal sized disks, and I too eagerly wait for Linux/openSUSE support of it. #7: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-19 11:30:15) With Oracle as owner of ZFS and the legal problems around it (check http://kerneltrap.org/node/8066), we cannot include it. And we would only include it if the kernel community accepts it as part of the kernel. #8: Andreas Jaeger (a_jaeger) (2011-07-25 15:21:59) (reply to #7) One more comment: http://arstechnica.com/open-source/news/2010/06/uptake-of-native-linux-zfs-p... Note: This does not apply to zfs-fuse - but using zfs through FUSE is nothing you want to do for high-performance access. + #11: Guido Berhörster (gberh) (2011-07-26 15:07:46) (reply to #8) + Distributing a package with the module in source form and a script to + compile it (e.g. DKMS or custom) should be legally sound and neither + violate the terms of the GPLv2 the kernel is under nor the terms of the + CDDL. There should also not be any patent issues since the kernel + module is derived from OpenSolaris ZFS code under the CDDL which + includes a patent grant. #10: Robert Davies (robopensuse) (2011-07-26 15:00:09) (reply to #7) http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html (http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html) says "a single derived work of the Linux kernel and ZFS cannot be legally distributed". However "ZFS code can be modified to build as a CDDL licensed kernel module which is not distributed as part of the Linux kernel. This makes a Native ZFS on Linux implementation possible if you are willing to download and build it yourself". Looks like it needs to be in 3rd party repo not part of openSUSE project repos according to the developers themselves! #9: Di Pe (dipe) (2011-07-26 14:03:12) AJ, Yes, ZFS cannot be compiled as part of the kernel because of a license restriction. The restriction lies probably more within the GPL rather than the CDDL. (The CDDL does not seem to have an issue with BSD compiling and distributing ZFS as core part of the OS) You are quoting a kerneltrap article from a few years ago and one arstechnica from last year. I just wanted to clarify that these articles are talking about different things. The first is about merging the ZFS code into the Linux Kernel and the second one is about the approach Lawrence Livermore is taking: They use a kernel module to satisfy the GPL license requirements. The Meister himself suggests that distributing binary modules with the kernel is reasonable (though not his preferred way of doing things): ------------------------------------------------ http://linuxmafia.com/faq/Kernel/proprietary-kernel-modules.html "It would be rather preposterous to call the Andrew FileSystem a 'derived work' of Linux, for example, so I think it's perfectly OK to have a AFS module, for example." -- Linus Torvalds "If somebody wants to port his SVR4 driver to Linux but doesn't want to GPL it, I feel that he should have the right to do that, using modules" -- Linus Torvalds ------------------------------------------------- Now it would be resonable for openSUSE to say this is not what we want in a truly open distro. Then let's put it in the non-oss repository but still support it officially. All I would be asking is that a kernel update would also trigger a ZFS update so a kernel update does not break ZFS. In a couple of months the Livermore implementation will probably be mature enough to be added to SLE. I am sure your Enterprise customers would *love* this feature (ask them if they plan to deply BTRFS is the next couple of years). My staff is always joking: SLES is like openSUSE, you just pay money and get fewer packages and call it Enterprise. (OK SLES has many other benefits...but you get the point) Any chance we can make this happen ? -- openSUSE Feature: https://features.opensuse.org/311030