[Gluster-users] ZFS + Linux + Glusterfs for a production ready 100+ TB NAS on cloud

paul simpson paul at realisestudio.com
Thu Sep 29 17:13:26 UTC 2011

hey joe,

recived the legal issues loud and clear - all very good points.  hope these
issues will become clarified in due course.

putting the legal issues aside - still v keen to hear your and others
thoughts about ZFS&L2ARC being a good platform for glusterfs.  that fast SSD
tier sounds like a perfect compliment to glusters slow small file



On 29 September 2011 17:48, Joe Landman <landman at scalableinformatics.com>wrote:

> On 09/29/2011 12:38 PM, paul simpson wrote:
>> been reading this thread - quite fascinating.
>> zfsonlinux + gluster looks like an intriguing combination.  i'm
>> interested in your findings to date; specifically would the zfs L2ARC
>> (with SSDs) speed up underlying gluster operations?  it sounds like it
>> could be a potent mix.
> Just don't minimize the legal risk issue.  Its very hard for a vendor to
> ship/support this due to the potential risk.  Its arguably hard for a user
> to deploy zfs on linux due to the risk, unless they had a way to argue that
> they are not violating licensing (can't intermix GPL and CDDL and
> ship/support it) for commercial purposes.
> Lots of folks can't claim the type of cover that a national lab can claim
> (researching storage models).  You have to decide if the risk is worth it.
> If you were to do this, I'd suggest going the Illumos/OpenIndiana or BSD
> route.  Yeah, work still needs to be done to get Gluster to build there, but
> the licensing is on firmer ground (hard to claim that an "open source"
> license such as CDDL does not mean what it says).
> Understand where you stand first.  Speak to a lawyer type first.  Make sure
> you won't have issues.
> And do remember, that while Oracle and Netapp have (for the moment)
> de-escalated hostilities, Oracle did not provide indemnity to non-Oracle
> customers.  So Netapp (and others) *can* resume their actions.  A question
> was asked why not go after Nexenta versus others.  Simple. There are many
> others (e.g. more potential licensing/legal fees) as compared to a single
> Nexenta.  Its arguably less about rights as it is revenue from legal action.
>  But that stuff does happen ...
> Oracle is probably the only one whom can ship ZFS anything safely.  And,
> I'd guess that they are perfectly happy with that situation.
>> regards,
>> -paul
> --
> Joseph Landman, Ph.D
> Founder and CEO
> Scalable Informatics Inc.
> email: landman at scalableinformatics.**com <landman at scalableinformatics.com>
> web  : http://scalableinformatics.com
>       http://scalableinformatics.**com/sicluster<http://scalableinformatics.com/sicluster>
> phone: +1 734 786 8423 x121
> fax  : +1 866 888 3112
> cell : +1 734 612 4615
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://supercolony.gluster.org/pipermail/gluster-users/attachments/20110929/6f01eba6/attachment.html>

More information about the Gluster-users mailing list