From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Andrey Kuzmin Subject: Re: Btrfs development plans Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:57:10 +0400 Message-ID: <2a31deca0904200957v39badd2eu4b26844e78fdcde3@mail.gmail.com> References: <1240238253.16213.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org> <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Cc: linux-btrfs To: Ahmed Kamal Return-path: In-Reply-To: <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com> List-ID: On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal wrote: >> =C2=A0But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrfs= =2E >> Just kidding, I don't think it would be technically feasible. >> > > May I suggest the name "ZbtrFS" :) > Sorry couldn't resist. On a more serious note though, is there any > technical benefits that justify continuing to push money in btrfs Personally, I don't see any. Porting zfs to Linux will cost (quite) some time and effort, but this is peanuts compared to what's needed to get btrfs (no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity with zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots and other features; btrfs is free from both. Regards, Andrey > -- > To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs= " in > the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org > More majordomo info at =C2=A0http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.ht= ml > -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-btrfs" = in the body of a message to majordomo@vger.kernel.org More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html