On 07/01/2018 05:26 AM, Hamish Marson wrote:
I’m new to stratis, so apologies if I bring up things that have been
discussed elsewhere previously. I don’t really understand the reluctance
of RH to use zfs. Yes, it’s not GPL’ed. But it is CDDL. And as long as
you don’t try to compile it into a monolithic kernel for distribution
that would be fine. e.g.
This is a hard requirement for us, so ZFS is not an option.
But what I can’t understand (Even after reading the papers) is why
attempt to use LVM and xfs, which really don’t have the functionality I
(Or anyone else that I can find) require, and I see no chance for them
ever having it, when there is a filesystem that does have the features.
And is gplv2’ed. e.g. advfs. Yes, it had its issues back in the 90’s.
Yes, it’s (currently) limited to 16TB files and filesystems. Yes it’s
tied to True64. But would the effort to complete (I have seen some
attempts already) the port it to Linux, and extend its capabilities be
more than the effort required to get LVM2 & xfs to a position where you
could consider it a worth competitor for zfs?
No, I’m not asking for a change of direction here. That would be too
much to hope for. I’d just like to understand why existing filesystems
were ruled out in favour of something that I just can’t see working as
seamlessly as I require in my day job.
Stratis does not use LVM, it uses device-mapper, which LVM also uses. I
believe we can eventually achieve many of the same use cases as ZFS,
including the one you mention (upgrade with rollback). dm-thin has the
capability to do this, and I think Stratis can make it as easy to use as
ZFS, in the future.
I am not very familiar with advfs, thanks for mentioning it I'll try to
learn more about it!
Regards -- Andy