Re: Btrfs development plans

Gregory Maxwell
2009-04-20T17:08:27Z

On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 12:57 PM, Andrey Kuzmin
<andrey.v.kuzmin@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 20, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Ahmed Kamal
> <email.ahmedkamal@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>> =C2=A0But now Oracle can re-license Solaris and merge ZFS with btrf=
s.
>>> 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 t=
o
> get btrfs =C2=A0(no offense meant) to maturity level/feature parity w=
ith
> zfs. The only thing that could prevent this is CDDL licensing issues
> and patent claims from NTAP over zfs snapshots =C2=A0and other featur=
es;
> btrfs is free from both.

I'm sure that people with far more experience than I will comment=E2=80=
=94
But considering that BTRFS is in the Linux Kernel today, the histories
of other imported FSes (XFS), and the state of ZFS in FreeBSD this
may not be strictly true.
--
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