Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Andrew Wang]

ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
good file system.

Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?

I know that ReiserFS4 breaks Linux coding standards.
However, even if Sun releases ZFS under GPL, we still
need to port it to the Linux kernel.

I think for those who ask/beg Sun to release ZFS under
GPL should do the work to get ReiserFS4 to Linux!

Andrew.





      ____________________________________________________________________________________
杜絕網路駭客，保障帳號安全 -
馬上設定Yahoo!奇摩安全圖章
http://tw.info.yahoo.com/seal/index.html

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On Apr 30 2007 02:18, Andrew Wang wrote:
>
>ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
>good file system.
>
>Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
>ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?

Do we?

>I know that ReiserFS4 breaks Linux coding standards.
>However, even if Sun releases ZFS under GPL, we still
>need to port it to the Linux kernel.
>
>I think for those who ask/beg Sun to release ZFS under
>GPL should do the work to get ReiserFS4 to Linux!

It's already there for Linux. It's just that you have to
merge it yourself.


RR:
Some people have different opinions about what constitutes
a good filesystem. One half goes with ext, the other with
<CENSORED>, mainly because "it works" for them, has "proven
to be stable enough", "<CENSORED> has not proven to be
stable", or perhaps just out of fs beliefs/conviction.
I myself would not 'want' either zfs or r4 at this time,
and there's even an objective reason behind it.



Jan
-- 

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Jeff Garzik]

Andrew Wang wrote:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
> 
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?

Please take your content-free cheerleading to the local grade school
football game.

	Jeff

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Theodore Tso]

On Mon, Apr 30, 2007 at 02:18:19AM +0800, Andrew Wang wrote:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
> 
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?

The people who want ZFS have in mind certain features, such as the
ability to scale to very large sizes, and ease of use when
administering filesystems that span multiple disks (ZFS subsumes the
device-mapper/RAID layer in Solaris, so they get certain performance
benefits and they are able to make it simpler to set up a filesystem
that spans multiple disks with a single command --- the flip side is
that they are violating an relatively well understood abstraction
boundary, for better or for worse).   

The claimed advantages of Reiser4 don't overlap much (if at all) with
the claimed advantages of ZFS.

> I think for those who ask/beg Sun to release ZFS under
> GPL should do the work to get ReiserFS4 to Linux!

Most of the people who have been cheerleading for either ZFS or
Reiser4 don't seme to have the necessary technical skills, alas.

					- Ted

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Chris Adams]

Once upon a time, Theodore Tso  <tytso@mit.edu> said:
>The people who want ZFS have in mind certain features, such as the
>ability to scale to very large sizes, and ease of use when
>administering filesystems that span multiple disks (ZFS subsumes the
>device-mapper/RAID layer in Solaris, so they get certain performance
>benefits and they are able to make it simpler to set up a filesystem
>that spans multiple disks with a single command --- the flip side is
>that they are violating an relatively well understood abstraction
>boundary, for better or for worse).   

I haven't used ZFS, but I do manage servers with Tru64 Unix AdvFS
filesystems.  Having some of the logical volume functionality merged in
the filesystem layer does seem to be a good thing.  For example,
snapshotting a filesystem can use free space in the filesystem (without
having to set aside unused logical volume space for snapshotting).
Expanding the filesystem is simple: "addvol <device> <AdvFS domain>" and
go (no adding to the volume group, extending the logical volume, and
resizing the filesystem).  Shrinking the filesystem is just as easy
(currently you can't even do that live with ext3).

I know this violates the Linux layering.  However, AdvFS has done this
for years (in a single-system-image cluster environment even), and now I
guess ZFS does it as well.  Maybe the Linux layering needs a revision to
handle something like this?

I'm just speaking as a system admin that prefers Linux everywhere, but
does like (and will miss) a few things about Tru64/TruCluster.

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Matthias Andree]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007, Andrew Wang wrote:

> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.
> 
> Why do we want Sun to release ZFS under GPL, while
> ReiserFS4 is already available under GPL!?

Reiser4 doesn't appear to work anywhere except with Linux AFAICT, and
being able to move storage between operating systems sure looks
interesting...

> I think for those who ask/beg Sun to release ZFS under
> GPL should do the work to get ReiserFS4 to Linux!

Perhaps you might ask them first if they have looked into porting
Reiser4 to kernel style, ripping out duplicate code - or they decided
that would be a more boring job than porting ZFS :-)

-- 
Matthias Andree

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Krzysztof Halasa]

Matthias Andree <matthias.andree@gmx.de> writes:

> Reiser4 doesn't appear to work anywhere except with Linux AFAICT, and
> being able to move storage between operating systems sure looks
> interesting...

Not very, actually, unless you're thinking about "portable" devices
which use things like FAT16 for max compatibility.
-- 
Krzysztof Halasa

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[lkml777]

On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
<andrewxwang@yahoo.com.tw> said:
> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
> good file system.

Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:

REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

You can read more here:

<a href="http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm"
target="_blank">http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm</a>
<a href="http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm"
target="_blank">http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm</a>

.-------------------------.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
.-------------------------.
|REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 |
|REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 |
.-------------------------.
|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
.-------------------------.


Column one measures the time taken to complete the bonnie++ benchmarking
test (run with the parameters bonnie++ -n128:128k:0). The top two
results use Reiser4 with compression. Since bonnie++ writes test files
which are almost all zeros, compression speeds things up dramatically.
That this is not the case in real world examples can be seen below where
compression does not speed things up. However, more importantly, it does
not slow things down either.

Column two, Disk Usage: measures the amount of disk used to store 655MB
of raw data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources).

OR LOOK AT THE FULL RESULTS:

.-------------------------------------------------.
|File         |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar  |Unzip| Del |
|System       |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 |
|Type         | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig |
.-------------------------------------------------.
|REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 |  68 |  83 |  48 |  70 |
|REISER4 lzo  | 278 | 138 |  56 |  80 |  34 |  84 |
|REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 |  63 |  78 |  33 |  65 |
|REISER4      | 692 | 148 |  55 |  67 |  25 |  56 |
|NTFS3g       | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 |
|NTFS         | 779 | 781 | 173 |   X |   X |   X |
|REISER3      | 793 | 184 |  98 |  85 |  63 |  22 |
|XFS          | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 |  90 | 106 |
|JFS          | 806 | 228 | 202 |  95 |  97 | 127 |
|EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 |  55 |  69 |  36 |  32 |
|EXT4 default | 816 | 174 |  70 |  74 |  42 |  50 |
|EXT3         | 816 | 182 |  74 |  73 |  43 |  51 |
|EXT2         | 816 | 201 |  82 |  73 |  39 |  67 |
|FAT32        | 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 |  81 |  95 |
.-------------------------------------------------.


Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded.
Disk Usage: The amount of disk used to store the data (which was 3
different copies of the Linux kernel sources).
The raw data (without filesystem meta-data, block alignment wastage,
etc) was 655MB.
Copy 655MB (1): Copy the data over a partition boundary.
Copy 655MB (2): Copy the data within a partition.
Tar Gzip 655MB: Tar and Gzip the data.
Unzip UnTar 655MB: UnGzip and UnTar the data.
Del 2.5 Gig: Delete everything just written (about 2.5 Gig).

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/4
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - And now for something completely different…

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Jan Engelhardt]

On May 1 2007 19:43, lkml777@123mail.org wrote:
>On Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:18:19 +0800 (CST), "Andrew Wang"
><andrewxwang@yahoo.com.tw> said:
>> ZFS has some nice features, but ReiserFS4 also is a
>> good file system.
>
>Yes, a very GOOD question, considering:
>
>REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

shut it plz.



Jan
-- 

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[lkml777]

Hi andrew, it seems that lkml has contacted both of my email accounts
and cripped them.

I can no longer recieve email from lkml on this account.

I can neither recieve or send email to lkml from my other account.

They have also just deleted the 4 emails I sent to lkml from the page
http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/30/

This included one to you.

In case you didn't get it,... here it is again.

------------

Yeah, why do you need ZFS while we have ReiserFS4?????

REISER4 - THE BEST FILESYSTEM EVER.

You can read more here:

http://linuxhelp.150m.com/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm
http://m.domaindlx.com/LinuxHelp/resources/fs-benchmarks.htm

.-------------------------.
| FILESYSTEM | TIME |DISK |
| TYPE       |(secs)|USAGE|
.-------------------------.
|REISER4 lzo | 1938 | 278 |
|REISER4 gzip| 2295 | 213 |
.-------------------------.
|REISER4     | 3462 | 692 |
|EXT2        | 4092 | 816 |
|JFS         | 4225 | 806 |
|EXT4        | 4408 | 816 |
|EXT3        | 4421 | 816 |
|XFS         | 4625 | 779 |
|REISER3     | 6178 | 793 |
|FAT32       |12342 | 988 |
|NTFS-3g     |10414 | 772 |
.-------------------------.


Column one measures the time taken to complete the bonnie++ benchmarking
test (run with the parameters bonnie++ -n128:128k:0). The top two
results use Reiser4 with compression. Since bonnie++ writes test files
which are almost all zeros, compression speeds things up dramatically.
That this is not the case in real world examples can be seen below where
compression does not speed things up. However, more importantly, it does
not slow things down either.

Column two, Disk Usage: measures the amount of disk used to store 655MB
of raw data (which was 3 different copies of the Linux kernel sources).

OR LOOK AT THE FULL RESULTS:

.-------------------------------------------------.
|File         |Disk |Copy |Copy |Tar  |Unzip| Del |
|System       |Usage|655MB|655MB|Gzip |UnTar| 2.5 |
|Type         | (MB)| (1) | (2) |655MB|655MB| Gig |
.-------------------------------------------------.
|REISER4 gzip | 213 | 148 |  68 |  83 |  48 |  70 |
|REISER4 lzo  | 278 | 138 |  56 |  80 |  34 |  84 |
|REISER4 tails| 673 | 148 |  63 |  78 |  33 |  65 |
|REISER4      | 692 | 148 |  55 |  67 |  25 |  56 |
|NTFS3g       | 772 |1333 |1426 | 585 | 767 | 194 |
|NTFS         | 779 | 781 | 173 |   X |   X |   X |
|REISER3      | 793 | 184 |  98 |  85 |  63 |  22 |
|XFS          | 799 | 220 | 173 | 119 |  90 | 106 |
|JFS          | 806 | 228 | 202 |  95 |  97 | 127 |
|EXT4 extents | 806 | 162 |  55 |  69 |  36 |  32 |
|EXT4 default | 816 | 174 |  70 |  74 |  42 |  50 |
|EXT3         | 816 | 182 |  74 |  73 |  43 |  51 |
|EXT2         | 816 | 201 |  82 |  73 |  39 |  67 |
|FAT32        | 988 | 253 | 158 | 118 |  81 |  95 |
.-------------------------------------------------.


Each test was preformed 5 times and the average value recorded.
Disk Usage: The amount of disk used to store the data (which was 3
different copies of the Linux kernel sources).
The raw data (without filesystem meta-data, block alignment wastage,
etc) was 655MB.
Copy 655MB (1): Copy the data over a partition boundary.
Copy 655MB (2): Copy the data within a partition.
Tar Gzip 655MB: Tar and Gzip the data.
Unzip UnTar 655MB: UnGzip and UnTar the data.
Del 2.5 Gig: Delete everything just written (about 2.5 Gig).

http://lkml.org/lkml/2007/4/9/4
-- 
  
  lkml777@123mail.org

-- 
http://www.fastmail.fm - A fast, anti-spam email service.

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Xu CanHao]

On Apr 30, 7:50 am, Theodore Tso <t...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> Most of the people who have been cheerleading for either ZFS or
> Reiser4 don't seme to have the necessary technical skills, alas.
>
>                                         - Ted

Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
ZFS may be inappropriate.

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Theodore Tso]

On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> ZFS may be inappropriate.

Functional, but it's a new filesystem with not as much time-tested
experience in the field.  Many Solaris system administrators are
electing to wait rather than immediately press it into service for
critical servers, electing to use Solaris's UFS instead.  I've heard a
few problems with ZFS recovering from data corruption, but not enough
to know whether it is a general trend (not that I track that kind of
stuff).  As a rule, enterprise system administrators that run PO
servers for thousands of users as a time are extremely conservative,
and for good reason.   

Of course, there's a big difference between those folks and people
using ZFS for their own personal development.

						- Ted

Re: Why ask Sun for ZFS while we have ReiserFS4 !?

[Xu CanHao]

2007/5/2, Theodore Tso <tytso@mit.edu>:
> On Tue, May 01, 2007 at 09:17:14PM +0800, Xu CanHao wrote:
> > Reiser4 may lack some core function, but ZFS on Solaris is as
> > functional as ext3 on Linux(or even more). So compare Reiser4 with
> > ZFS may be inappropriate.
>
> Functional, but it's a new filesystem with not as much time-tested
> experience in the field.  Many Solaris system administrators are
> electing to wait rather than immediately press it into service for
> critical servers, electing to use Solaris's UFS instead.  I've heard a
> few problems with ZFS recovering from data corruption, but not enough
> to know whether it is a general trend (not that I track that kind of
> stuff).  As a rule, enterprise system administrators that run PO
> servers for thousands of users as a time are extremely conservative,
> and for good reason.
>
> Of course, there's a big difference between those folks and people
> using ZFS for their own personal development.
>
>                                                 - Ted
>
On May 1, 1:50 am, Theodore Tso <t...@mit.edu> wrote:
>
> In general, yes, ext4 development has been a little slow; part of the
> problem is that we have a lot of people, but a number of folks are new
> and their patches need review before they are ready for upstream
> acceptance, and a number of other folks who should be doing the review
> have been overloaded with multiple other projects and have been
> time-sharing.

It is predictable that ext4 needs a loooong time to be enterprise-ready ;)