[Discuss] LVM Snapshot Wrapup

[blu at nedharvey.com (Edward Ned Harvey)]

> From: markw at mohawksoft.com [mailto:markw at mohawksoft.com]
>
> That license issue is a real issue for a business. Besides that, storage
> is a commodity. I think the market for something that is billed as storage
> is pretty much saturated.

I just want to be sure this is clear - there is no license issue, unless you
want to run zfs directly on linux.  There is no problem, even for a
business, if you're running zfs on solaris/openindiana/freebsd or any other
compatible OS, and sharing that storage (iscsi, nfs, whatever) to any other
clients, such as linux or whatever.  You're not trying to talk crazy talk or
fud, are you?  It sounds strangely confused...  The cddl/gpl license
incompatibility thing is not an issue for either an individual or business
who is using it internally and not distributing it.  And there is no
difference between being a business or an individual or anything else - it's
all the same, and must abide by the same rules either way.

If you're talking about doing snapshots / backups / whatever based on LVM
and billing it as something other than storage or backups, I'd be very
curious just what on earth you are talking about, or what non-saturated
market you're thinking about.


> >> Btrfs:
> >> Doesn't have a completely functional fsck yet, and still has
performance
> >> issues. It is still not considered "stable" yet with regard to the
> >> kernel.
> >
> > Are you trying to solve a problem for yourself, or trying to create a
new
> > product for general use by people on the internet at large?  If it's a
> > general product you're planning to invent ... the "not stable yet"
> > argument
> > against btrfs won't hold water for long.  It barely holds water now, as
> > people are starting to deploy btrfs in production, and btrfs is being
> > included (but not enabled by default) in most major distributions.
> 
> It has been well over a year since it was rejected by RedHat because of
> the issue and it still does not have one.

I don't understand your use of pronouns in that sentence...  What was
rejected by redhat?  What issue?  What still does not have one of what?