On 4/11/17, 10:08 AM, "[log in to unmask] on behalf of Tom H" <[log in to unmask] on behalf of [log in to unmask]> wrote:



    On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 4:30 AM, Jose Marques <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    >> On 10 Apr 2017, at 18:23, David Sommerseth <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

    >>

    >> But I'll give you that Oracle is probably a very different beast on

    >> the legal side and doesn't have a too good "open source karma".

    >

    > ZFS on Linux is based on OpenZFS

    > (<http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page>). Oracle has no input into its

    > development as far as I can tell.

    

    I'm not sure that David S is referring to. Sun open-sourced zfs and it

    was at zpool version 28 when Oracle closed-sourced it. So the cat's

    out of the bag up to v28. But the Solaris version's currently 36

    (IIRC) and, in openzfs, you can enable extra, post-v28 features on a

    case by case basis.

    

    [Someone said up-thread that you couldn't expand a pool (or add disks

    to a pool). That's incorrect. You can add a same-type vdev to a pool.]

    



FWIW, we’ve been shipping a current version of ZFS with our SL spin for a few years, and use it for several of our internal storage servers. It’s been quite stable in our environment with the proper care and feeding. But it’s still a storage-server environment (I don’t call it a filesystem), not a generic substitute for EXT4 or XFS. Tools for the job and all that.



Not going to comment much on the licensing aspects other than we’re fairly paranoid and have deemed the licenses acceptable for our business and redistribution purposes. Most if not all of the Oracle CDDL(?)-licensed code has been excised as far as I know. Others here track that, so I personally don’t think about it much.