I use ZFS on Linux for my file server. One of the nicest things about it is that the caching algos actually work - they're resilient to scans, so I can, for instance, have an intensively used database file that remains in RAM, even while & after doing a linear scan over a large number of files (eg during rsync). With the standard Linux page replacement algos, linear reads will flush the stuff you're actually using out of the page cache.<p>The fact that the caching algos are so good at keeping things in memory is why everyone gets hung up on using ECC RAM with it.
Installing / on ZFS is fairly easy on most major Linux distributions, but Debian has been the main exception due to its initramfs generator lacking ZFS support. I am cautiously optimistic that will change.<p>If not, then this issue should go away when I publish ZFS support patches for syslinux later this year. syslinux is capable of generating initramfs archives on the fly, so adding ZFS support to it should largely eliminate the need for distribution-specific initramfs generators.
It's interesting that the Debian people feel that ZoL is not a derivative work.<p>I remember a thread where RMS claimed to Bruno Haible that clisp was a derivative work of readline, since it had <i>optional</i> readline support.<p>I always thought that position was untenable, but since Haible was open to licensing clisp under GPL anyway, there wasn't a whole lot of pushback.
If you are looking at playing around with ZFS on Linux, be sure to check out Aaron Toponce's awesome series of articles, entitled "Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux" [1]. I have also done a two part screencast about using ZFS on Linux [2], part two will be released later today.<p>[1] <a href="https://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zfs-on-debian-gnulinux/" rel="nofollow">https://pthree.org/2012/04/17/install-zfs-on-debian-gnulinux...</a><p>[2] <a href="https://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/35-zfs-on-linux-part-1-of-2" rel="nofollow">https://sysadmincasts.com/episodes/35-zfs-on-linux-part-1-of...</a>
Why doesn't Oracle just change ZFS to dual-license GPL/CDDL, and scrap btrfs?<p>My experiences with ZFS have been quite good, and with btrfs quite bad.
So it sounds like they are okay with binary kernel modules, just not built-in to the base kernel. FreeBSD manages to do ZFS as a kernel module (plus another module for Open Solaris abstractions) quite successfully. Although it has somewhat of an ugly ZFS-on-root shim loader for booting from a ZFS partition, it does certainly get the job done.<p>Here's hoping Debian can develop something similar so that users can create and boot from a ZFS partition during their installer.<p>> CCDL is an Open Source License that is DFSG compliant<p>I don't mean to nitpick, but if you're going to discuss the legalities of a license, at least spell it correctly. It's not CCDL, it's CDDL, or Common Development and Distribution License.
> Debian maintainers vote to ship ZFSonLinux in Debian<p>I don't believe that's what the linked post is saying. I may be missing additional context that's posted elsewhere, but at least what I read in <i>this</i> thread is: 1) the Debian ftpmasters rejected the binary ZFS module upload; and 2) the Debian ZFS-on-Linux team met at Debconf 14 and agreed on this summary/response, arguing why it should be accepted.<p>But has that response itself been accepted? Where is the mentioned vote? The only other post I see in the linked thread is from Lucas Nussbaum (Debian project leader), which sounds inconclusive,<p><i>I think that adding an actual question to our legal counsel would help focus their work. ... I'll wait for comments or ACK from ftpmasters before forwarding your mail to SFLC.</i>