From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 From: Alex Elsayed Subject: Re: Btrfs development plans Date: Mon, 20 Apr 2009 10:39:21 -0700 Message-ID: References: <1240238253.16213.48.camel@think.oraclecorp.com> <20090420153118.GB6195@mother.fordon.pl.eu.org> <3da3b5b40904200910x63e4e26cqe058ce0e4bc7f8c8@mail.gmail.com> <2a31deca0904200957v39badd2eu4b26844e78fdcde3@mail.gmail.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" To: linux-btrfs@vger.kernel.org Return-path: List-ID: Andrey Kuzmin wrote: > 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. There's one thing you're overlooking: the core kernel developers have already stated that ZFS is a "rampant layering violation" and otherwise indicated they do not want ZFS in the Linux kernel, whereas BtrFS has gotten a much more positive response. It may well be that on the /Oracle/ side, the political and technical problems with porting ZFS are smaller than those with finishing BtrFS, but if the kernel developers wouldn't accept it, _any_ money and effort spent on it would be wasted money and effort.