[OpenAFS] Prefered file system for vice partitions

[Steve Simmons]

On Nov 22, 2010, at 12:41 PM, Stephen Joyce wrote:

> Note that I just read about this on slashdot =
<http://linux.slashdot.org/story/10/11/22/1433246/Running-ZFS-Natively-On-=
Linux-Slower-Than-Btrfs>, which along with the cruft its discussions are =
wont to have, touches on licensing issues. OpenAFS gets a mention (not =
by me).

After reading the article the slashdot item points to, I'd have to say =
their analysis is premature. It appears the system being tested broke =
off from LANL about a year back. The article says:

"...We have seen the source code to the KQ Infotech work and as of right =
now it appears to have been branched from the Lawrence Livermore =
National Laboratories ZFS work at 2009-11-24. This is from the SPL/ZFS =
0.4.9 release that was based upon OpenSolaris Nevada Build (ONNV) 121 =
with Zpool version 18 and file-system version 4. The upstream LLNL work =
is up to version 0.5.2 with ONNV Build 147, Zpool 28, and ZFS =
file-system version five. KQ Infotech has pulled in support right now =
for ZFS Zpool version 26, but before the January release they plan to =
rebase against Zpool 28."

I did a quick perusal of the ZFS on Linux site (http://zfsonlinux.org/), =
the Pharonal review =
(http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=3Darticle&item=3Dlinux_kqzfs_benchm=
arks&num=3D1), and the site from which Pharonal got their distro =
(http://zfs.kqinfotech.com/). My end opinion is 'why bother?' I can't =
see that KQ adds any value that would not have been better done by =
working more directly with LANL/ZFS on Linux, and a 'performance review' =
of a beta that itself is based on a year-old version of the LANL code is =
only slightly useful. Frankly, pharonal should have either waited two =
months for the LANL release or tested it as well.

Steve=