Dear list,

I've been researching ZFS and in the process stumbled upon Stratis and its Software Design paper [1].

The conclusion reads:

Based on looking at the existing available building blocks, the best option is to build Stratis as a new project that initially makes use of XFS and device-mapper in its implementation. In parallel, request enhancements to LVM2 to enable its substitution for device-mapper when the enhancements are implemented. This lets Stratis proceed without delay to a point where it can be placed in prospective users’ hands to start getting feedback, and will allow Stratis to eventually use LVM2, and avoid duplicating functionality that LVM2 already provides.

I must same that I am very dismayed and disappointed to read that LVM is being considered at all, given the existence of ZFS, when the point of Stratis seems to be an extremely convoluted way of trying to replicate the excellent design of ZFS without using ZFS because of obscure licensing fears.

LVM is a usability nightmare compared to ZFS [2].

I think it is great that Stratis at least pushes the envelope in some way by choosing Rust as its implementation language.

However, why should anyone be excited about the prospect of using a system that is designed to be inferior to ZFS?

Why is all of this effort being poured into an inferior system design?

ZFS certainly has its problems (its installation is currently a nightmare thanks to lack of distro support), but software architecture design and usability do not seem to be one of them.

I wish Linux distributions had something like ZFS, whether that comes in the form of Stratis or something else. ZFS has been around for 13 years and still nothing has come close to beating it.

I urge this list to avoid expending effort on anything below the standard that ZFS has set.

- Greg




Please do not email me anything that you are not comfortable also sharing with the NSA.