From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org ([208.92.234.80] helo=lists.gentoo.org) by finch.gentoo.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Olnwk-0007di-Lm for garchives@archives.gentoo.org; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:05:10 +0000 Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 897541C015; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-iw0-f181.google.com (mail-iw0-f181.google.com [209.85.214.181]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6833BE0AA2 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 19:04:37 +0000 (UTC) Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so983519iwn.40 for ; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:received:mime-version:sender:received :in-reply-to:references:from:date:x-google-sender-auth:message-id :subject:to:content-type; bh=li4KKgK1f3occb5mWV/lpA0eB2GcavwnbHxOSWLHkQA=; b=qwEwRIqPMkz2krYTqZuuRUEg3SRhj3E7+xP/uhSf06gdfYV4CceG1BeFwEjRubTvdx IWzvKPjralg6R8zP/eASTDa2bShI0z67fqrwaftTFZa2g8v8177mpT3QlehZy9nrn1bh s9sUuAhmuEupAzcxQlfMs+BGh+7SnlpmagELQ= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:sender:in-reply-to:references:from:date :x-google-sender-auth:message-id:subject:to:content-type; b=USkPXMRzVNy6OVpaH+7KvAFW5VmLNHbLPd1n8VdJ5mz/V2rcMt5busxKKKnEd08TMu wPNCNqwGwuk1IjDqieBg/I1OxJXM2qOA3Os9E2VCsg7/c95XfsDK8X6dxRi+7dS47IB6 0SQuh4zxgNNrqtUT0OQ6OzueMMz6qCX2cO6q8= Received: by 10.231.152.78 with SMTP id f14mr9896952ibw.60.1282158277180; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:04:37 -0700 (PDT) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: fthtmn@gmail.com Received: by 10.231.200.134 with HTTP; Wed, 18 Aug 2010 12:04:17 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <4c6c2b40.blKUSwt9m/Tv9V/r%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> References: <4C6A7D23.9030007@gmx.de> <20100818123424.1a1218b4@zaphod.digimed.co.uk> <4C6BF3F0.6070803@gmail.com> <4C6C2850.2040007@gmail.com> <4c6c2b40.blKUSwt9m/Tv9V/r%Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> From: Nganon Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2010 22:04:17 +0300 X-Google-Sender-Auth: QqwYrNofXYpMpXPQsRPNvJyuBmA Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] How to build a time machine on Gentoo To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=005045014644a83d64048e1dbc7a X-Archives-Salt: 2bc98d55-cd20-4dae-930c-1a41aafceb18 X-Archives-Hash: 8343b7e51c5cbb22a5cf352ebbf703e0 --005045014644a83d64048e1dbc7a Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 On 18 August 2010 21:49, Joerg Schilling < Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote: > Bill Longman wrote: > > > On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote: > > > Clear now, thanks. > > > > > > > > > If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS. > > > > > > > > > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong? > > Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained? > > I was unsure, thats why I asked if I was wrong. My bad. > Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to > > remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a matter of > > licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played with > > BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in > > any way--it worked okay. > > ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be ported to > the > BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"? > > Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL, which is incompatible with GNU GPL, so it cant be distributed with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to FUSE. Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years > ago. > For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the > level > of stability currently seen with ZFS. > > ZFS was announced on 2004. So approximately six year, not ten. Besides, things in computer world do not always work that linearly, you know. --005045014644a83d64048e1dbc7a Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

On 18 August 2010 21:49, Joerg Schilling= <Joerg.Schilling@fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
Bill Longman <bill.longman@gmail.com> wrote:

> On 08/18/2010 11:03 AM, Nganon wrote:
> > Clear now, thanks.
> >
> >
> > =A0 =A0 If you want a robust filesystem, look into ZFS/BTRFS.
> >
> >
> > AFAIK ZFS is unmaintained and BTRFS is not stable, am I wrong?
Why do you believe ZFS is unmaintained?

=A0
I was unsure, t= hats why I asked if I was wrong. My bad.=A0

> Not really. ZFS is only available on Solaris right now. I seem to
> remember it was running on one of the BSD's, too, since it's a= matter of
> licensing that is the hurdle of greatest height. I've only played = with
> BTRFS on my dev box and the simple workout I gave it did not tax it in=
> any way--it worked okay.

ZFS has a very free license. This was the reason, why it could be por= ted to the
BSDs. So why do you believe there is a "license hurdle"?


Because ZFS is licensed with Sun CDDL,= which is=A0incompatible=A0with GNU GPL,=A0
so it cant be distrib= uted with Linux kernel. That's why it is ported to FUSE.

=
Also note: btrfs now is three years old. ZFS was started aprox. 10 years ag= o.
For this reason, btrfs is expected to need another 7 years to readh the lev= el
of stability currently seen with ZFS.


ZFS was announced on 2004. So approxim= ately six year, not ten. Besides, things in=A0
computer world=A0d= o not always=A0work that linearly, you know. =A0

--005045014644a83d64048e1dbc7a--