[Info-vax] File Systems (was: Re: New VSI Roadmap (yipee!))

[William Pechter]

In article <md76nc$7j6$1 at dont-email.me>,
Stephen Hoffman  <seaohveh at hoffmanlabs.invalid> wrote:
>On 2015-03-04 11:45:00 +0000, Paul Sture said:
>
>> Hmm. Both Lustre and Cassandra are Java based and when the OpenJDK wiki 
>> concentrates so heavily on licensing issues I want to run a mile.
>
>Lustre is GPL2, which makes its inclusion into a closed-source OpenVMS 
>configuration comparatively unlikely.
>
>ZFS, if VSI decides to license that from Oracle, might work.  ZFS and 
>various other choices would likely require some changes for application 
>compatibility and for clustering — the caches would have to be 
>coordinated across cluster members — and getting a wholly new file 
>system to operate in the XQP environment and with the existing DCL 
>commands and system services would involve some work.
>
>It's certainly conceivable that they'd extend fields in ODS-5.
>
>VSI might also decide to implement disk partitioning.
>
>The addressing change effects code throughout the VMS kernel and in VSI 
>and third-party application code.  Code that uses a longword block 
>count or a longword block address, such as device drivers, 
>disk-reporting tools and likely including SNMP, and potentially even in 
>foreign file systems which would want or need to address these larger 
>volumes.
>
>What VSI might decide here, we shall learn.
>
>
>
>
>-- 
>Pure Personal Opinion | HoffmanLabs LLC
>

Would porting from the Illumos or FreeBSD ZFS which was built from the 
Open Source version be better than going to Oracle.  I believe it is all 
under the CDDL license or the BSD license and supports the Zpool 5000.


This is tied to the Illumos version and OpenZFS.

>From the website:

 Do you plan to release OpenZFS under a license other than the CDDL?

No. We do not have the power to change the license of OpenZFS. No single entity holds the copyright to all of the OpenZFS code and all contributors to OpenZFS 
maintain copyright to their changes. Changing the license would require the 
consent of each one whose changes are part of the current codebase. That is 
basically everyone who has contributed since 2001. 

http://open-zfs.org/wiki/Main_Page


Bill
-- 
-- 
Digital had it then.  Don't you wish you could buy it now!
pechter-at-gmail.com  http://xkcd.com/705/