Linus responds about the kernel breaking the out-of-tree ZFS module. - Page 1
Forum section: electronics / general

author: Karel
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 11:52:08 am
content: Linus wrote of ZFS on Linux:Quotehttps://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Linus-Says-No-To-ZFS-LinuxI couldn't agree more (with Linus).

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 12:08:09 pm
content: Quote from: Karel on January 10, 2020, 11:52:08 amHis da man!

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 01:09:46 pm
content: I run Ubuntu with ZFS for more than a year now, and it's working just fine.True that I usually don't go with the latest and shiniest version. Now I'm still using 4.18.0-13 kernel, waiting to replace the current Ubuntu 18.10 with the next 20.04 LTS coming this spring, most probably will go this time for a Kubuntu (Plasma) version, rather than the regular Ubuntu (Gnome).If ZFS won't work with Kubuntu 20.04 LTS, what file system would be then recommended, with similar features?

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 01:46:51 pm
content: What features do you need? Redundancy? Checkpointing? Striping for throughput improvement? SSD as cache for HDs. It's hard to get all the features, but it might be possible for just the relevant ones.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 02:36:37 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 10, 2020, 01:46:51 pmIn listing features, don't forget what I've always personally regarded asthemost important feature in ZFS: no silent data corruption. (i.e. the inbuilt Merkle tree)Another feature that I've found most useful in ZFS and which is, last time I looked, unique to ZFS: the ability to take snapshots and sync the incremental changes to a remote file system.I used to use that feature that to keep a 'warmish' spare system by powering on the (spare) machine that held a remote filesystem copy every few hours, snapshoting on the live system, pushing the changes to the 'warmish' backup and then powering it off again. If the world crashed the spare system could be powered up to take over from the crashed system. This gave whole system recoverability to a known good point only a few hours in the past when it wasn't economic to run the other system as a hot spare (The situation was one of having a whole spare box, but not the power budget to keep it running 24/7.)

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 03:38:35 pm
content: Quote from: Marco on January 10, 2020, 01:46:51 pmMostly I need a file system with fast/cheap snapshots, and the ability to create/add later RAID arrays or extra HDDs for more storage space.Now I realize that I was not specific enough saying "Linux with ZFS". Linux is installed on an Ext4 partition, just that there is another big HDD formatted ZFS.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 04:07:59 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on January 10, 2020, 01:09:46 pmNobody said it wasn't. Linus barely adds in the end that he's unimpressed about it, which conveys the idea that it may not even be worth the trouble, but clearly many people are still happy about it.The license issue has been known for a long time:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFSAnd staying clear of anything related to Oracle looks like a good idea in general anyway (but of course that's a personal opinion.)Nothing much to add to this, Linus is just doing his job here.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 04:12:31 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on January 10, 2020, 03:38:35 pmI think any of us who've used ZFS on Linux would have assumed this anyway (that you were booting from a more 'Linuxy' filesystem). Itispossible to get Linux to boot from ZFS, but it's a pain in the posterior to set up and personally I've always had the feeling that doing so was likely to be a bit fragile.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 04:52:41 pm
content: Quote from: RoGeorge on January 10, 2020, 03:38:35 pmlvmthin seems to be the Linux way.If you want bitrot protection on mdadm RAID1, integritysetup.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 10, 2020, 05:44:21 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on January 10, 2020, 02:36:37 pmUnfortunately none of the big players are throwing money at this, buthereis a project in alpha to do it for thin provisioned LVMs.

author: Halcyon
author_rank: Unknown
timestamp: January 12, 2020, 10:10:28 am
content: Oh have to disagree with Linus here. ZFS is brilliant and works very well on FreeBSD. Although I absolutely support him about not using it on Linux (at least not yet).

author: BravoV
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 04:27:25 am
content: Damn, I am in the middle of planning to use the ZFS for the data drives in RAID 1 or 5, Linux noob here as I'm planning to migrate from Windows, I guess I will have to re-think my plan ?

author: radar_macgyver
author_rank: Frequent Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 05:23:36 am
content: Please read:https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/linus-torvalds-zfs-statements-arent-right-heres-the-straight-dope/

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 10:48:08 am
content: Quote from: BravoV on January 14, 2020, 04:27:25 amDon't panic. The kernel changes that affected ZFS reduced its stability - temporarily. The ZFS on Linux code was updated back in July to permanently work around the kernel borkage. The odds are if you're using one of the typical distributions that don't use cutting edge kernel versions or an up to date version of ZFS then you won't even come near the problem.If it's any comfort, I've had a pair of Debian 'Buster' machines using the version of ZFSoL from the Debian 'contrib' repository running since October providing the underlying shared storage for a VMWare cluster with zero problems.Just to make this more demanding there's a Gluster distributed file system layer inserted between ZFS and VMWare, and if that's not hairy enough the VMs doing this are themselves running on the VMWare that they are supporting using the underlying physical disks. The whole thing is sketchy as frig, deliberately so as an exercise in seeing if I could get reliable distributed storage working on a VMWare cluster without using VMWare's built in VSAN distributed file system. This might seem like an exercise in madness at first, but you can't use VMWare's distributed cluster power management with VSAN simultaneously and so have to have the whole cluster powered up simultaneously - my crazy scheme was to see if I could operate a cluster where machines were kept offline until they werereallyrequired while keeping all the VM migration facilities etc intact and not require an external shared storage solution. It seems to have worked.The point being that if ZFS on Linux has kept working for me as part of such a crazy scheme then it's likely to prove equally robust if you're not doing something quite so ill advised with it.

author: donotdespisethesnake
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 12:51:52 pm
content: I guess it's the usual story, Linus is the irascible conscience of FOSS, while the users say "I don't really care about openness, I want it because it works".I'm not sure that OpenZFS being forked from Sun's ZFS will stop Oracle waiting until OpenZFS is used everywhere and then hitting everyone with demands for license fees. Oracle have got form.Creating something good but encumbered is exactly the way rent-seeking companies use to extract profits from Open projects. For their own good, users should resist this, otherwise the 2 key benefits of Linux will disappear, and we go back to paying someone for the OS.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 06:35:43 pm
content: Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 14, 2020, 12:51:52 pmI agree.Like Linus, I don't think ZFS has such compelling technical features that would override the Oracle-behaviour risk involved.Sure, ZFS is very useful tosomeusers; it's just a risky situation, so it's up to ZFS/OpenZFS devs to keep up with the Linux kernel. (Demanding kernel developers give a stable ABI has been discussed for decades now, and the answer has always been "No, because it would restrict kernel development for no benefit to kernel developers". The changes that "broke" ZFS support were not done out of malice, but to let other functionality become better.)By the way, I do well understand the frustration when you have found a good tool, but politics/inertia/whatever makes its maintenance a pain. I've had that with gcc and glibc, and even with the Linux kernel itself. The most baffling one I've encountered is with browsers: Chrome/Chromium and Firefox won't let the user select UTF-8 as the default character set, because the developers decided they'd only allow "legacy" character sets. The only non-legacy character set is UTF-8. It's not like they just omitted support, either; they actually had to add explicit code toremove the option, as it would have been automatically supported by iconv, the underlying character set conversion library.At least in this case, you're given the plain reason for the choice. In the browser case, the best I've gotten is "because UTF-8 is not a legacy character set", which is an arbitrary definition (who defines legacy?) and has nothing to do with "default".

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 07:34:09 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 14, 2020, 06:35:43 pm"Legacy content" is defined in this context as content that doesn't specify what character encoding it uses. The Firefox preferences pane even makes this explicit - go to 'preferences', 'Fonts and Colours', "Advanced.." and you'll be where you can set the default (aka fallback) encoding and you'll see:Quote from: Firefox preferencesContent of "legacy" vintage would never be encoded in UTF-8 so it would not be a useful choice for the "legacy character set" to use as a fallback whereas a Windows code page, ISO character set or similar would.If you don't like their defaults itisopen source, you can change it.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 08:31:37 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 14, 2020, 06:35:43 pm(for pages w/o content-encoding info)IIRC that was done so because a UTF-8 encoded text can, unlike "legacy" encodings, be detected automatically, even w/o BOM.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 08:45:36 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on January 14, 2020, 07:34:09 pmThat's exactly the part that does not make sense. It's like defining "politically correct statements" as all statements made by people who identify themselves as non-white, the declare an extra fine for anyone uttering non-politically correct statements, and claim that the scheme is not racist, only about political correctness.The "Legacy content" definition makes zero sense, because the default setting applies to plain text files as well. It also applies to HTML 4.01, which was standardized after UTF-8, but HTML 4.01 defines no way to set the character encoding in the document itself. (Almost all browsers did support a character set definition via overriding the server Content-Type header using themetaelement, but this was never part of the standard itself, just a commonly implemented feature. How is UTF-8 not a legacy character set, when it was standardized before HTML 4.01 that lacks character set definition (it only arrived in HTML5 proper), like all other character sets? It is a completely arbitrary definition, and thus has no weight as a decision-making basis.)The true underlying reason for forbidding UTF-8 from being the default charset is actually much more interesting, and makes one lose all remaining respect for the folks "developing" web standards and browsers.Quote from: Cerebus on January 14, 2020, 07:34:09 pmHa-ha. Like I said, the browsers explicitly reject the setting, if you attempt via e.g. configuration files.Iam not complaining about a default being bad; I'm not that stupid. I am just pointing out a setting that was explicitly forbidden from use by the developers, because of an idiotic definition that defies all rational explanations. (Yours isn't one, it is just a repeated definition, that boils down to "we don't want to let you use UTF-8 as a default".)Anyway, if you reread my post, you'll see that that was not the point. My point was that at least ZFS users have gotten a clearly understandable reason why the upstream developers won't accommodate it: they fear retaliation from Oracle down the line. Browser users get that inane word-mash that has no logical meaning, just words strung together.Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 14, 2020, 08:31:37 pmNo, it cannot. Some idiots claim so, but they're wrong. There are a few heuristics, but they're statistical with zero guarantees, based on the probability of occurrence of certain non-latin character sequences in existing human-readable texts.(I was among the very first people who did automatic cp1252/macroman/iso8859-15/utf-8 detection in browsers, to support field input in web forms from different OSes, with content having non-Latin letters like €, ø, œ, and so on; in 1998 or 1999. We needed it for student reports in an university department with Macs (many 7.5.5 still), PCs (Windows 95, 98, NT), and at least me the sysadmin on a Linux machine.)

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 09:30:16 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 14, 2020, 08:45:36 pmFalse negatives are impossible: you can always tell if a text isn't UTF-8 -> use a legacy encoding then.False positives are almost impossible (or very improbable), and in that case can't you use the menu to specify the proper legacy encoding?QuoteYou're seeing the glass half emptyI'd rather say the probability of getting it right is almost 100%. IOW, give me a million legacy encoded texts, and I'll mistakenly flag as UTF-8 perhaps one or two at most, if any.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 09:36:00 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 14, 2020, 08:45:36 pmIt's there in the specs, look:"HTML 4.01 Specification"https://www.w3.org/TR/html401/charset.html#h-5.2.2https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/charset.html#h-5.2.2https://www.w3.org/TR/1999/PR-html40-19990824/charset.html#h-5.2.2QuoteEdit:It was in HTML 4.0 too:https://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40-971218/charset.html#h-5.2.2

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 09:55:18 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 14, 2020, 08:45:36 pmPlain text content can be served with the proper content-encoding header. If it comes from a file:// you can put a BOM. If not, UTF-8 auto-detect will work almost 100% of the time. If it fails, you can still choose the proper encoding in the menu. I'm not sure I'm understanding what the problem is. ?QuoteIf it was another stupid decision of the w3c, I would not be surprised at all... Please, please, please, explain!

author: Jr460
author_rank: Regular Contributor
timestamp: January 14, 2020, 11:42:19 pm
content: I've seen ZFS we have it on Solaris machines and it is a bit of a pain at times. Everything we have Linux/UNIX (Yes folks real UNIX is still heavy used in places) LVM and xfs or LVM and Vxfs do everything we need. RAID and stuff like that is handled at the disk array on a real Fiber Channel based SAN. ZFS smashes volume management and RAID and file system into one thing. That is trouble when you need to do things like just map a LUN on the SAN to different machine and do a vgimport.Just because everyone has LVM and it works almost exactly the same, (well IBM had to use different command names), and it can save you when application requirements change in regards to storage space, we use it. That alone means we don't want it. Now with Oracle licensing, and we have to deal with that for things..... dear god, run, run, run away as fast as you're can. Even if you think you have your Oracle products licensing all worked out, in a few years they just change how they do it. Ive seeing change at least 4 times from one model to another. Right now everything is CPU based, kind of, then they have this core factor BS, (I like this CPU right now, buy it. We can't sell SPARC so we put some lipstick on that pig in terms of a low core factor). And if you haven't seen how they count CPUs for in something ike an ESX cluster, you are in a for a sticker shock.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 01:44:59 pm
content: Quote from: GeorgeOfTheJungle on January 14, 2020, 09:55:18 pmBackup archives of websites on read-only media. I've got over two decades' worth of those.For stuff like getting non-Latin characters in emails correct in mailing list archives (like marc.info), I use a browser plugin.Don't forget, browser devs explicitly disabled the user option of choosing UTF-8 as the default charset. The basis was an arbitrary definition of "legacy", that no user ever asked for.You can waffle on and on as much as you like, but adding extra code in your project to stop users from choosing a specific value as a default when they "can still choose the proper encoding in the menu", and giving word soup as the reason, is still pure evil. If you'd stopped tothinkfor a moment, you might realize this too.When doing such decisions, at least havea reason. Linux kernel devs have given a simple clear one for ZFS/OpenZFS.This reminds me of a Microsoft Office bug on Macs in 1998. The ribbon support had a bug that stopped the machines from shutting down properly. In this era, the machines typically had 32-64 MBytes of memory. The solution from Microsoft was a kernel extension, that consumed over half a megabyte of RAM constantly. Instead of fixing the original bug in the component, they added constantly resident code that worked around the bug, consuming a significant amount of resources all the time, even when the application was not in use.A perfect solution, right?

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 02:16:58 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 15, 2020, 01:44:59 pm(emphasis mine)Atadhyperbolic don't you think? That a user interface choice is unwarranted or unjustifiable in your opinion I think falls somewhat short of "pure evil" in the whole gamut of human experience.

author: SiliconWizard
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 03:24:02 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 15, 2020, 01:44:59 pmI don't remember that, do you have some pointers for this info?But if it's true, yes it's very funny.Says a lot as to how business units were led at the time (probably hasn't much improved), and looks pretty typical of software dev typical quirks. Most often assumed that the nasty stuff can be fixed by the low-level guys while keeping the high-level ones ready for more features instead of fixing bugs. There's often some kind of implicit "hierarchy" there. The "high-level", application software people are expected to be the productive ones, so they just can't waste time fixing bugs.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 03:26:40 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on January 15, 2020, 02:16:58 pmNo.Consider it for a second. You expend a lot of effort simply to make one specific choice much harder (in the sense of requiring a lot of extra effort) for others to choose; a specific choice that does not affect yourself in any way, and cannot even explain why, instead having to use circular "logic" and arbitrary definitions to even explain it.This is a very good definition ofpure evil.You have yourself already shown in other discussions that you believe evil is when others disagree, even if they have a logical argument as to why. I disagree. Even blatant self-interest or selfishness is not evil, because there is a reason for it. It may be misguided, destructive, or bad; but not evil. Evil is negative action without benefiting anyone, without an explicable reason.Getting back to the topic at hand, while ZFS is useful to some users, its licensing and particularly the copyright owner, is such that those responsible for the copyrights and licensing in Linux do not want anything to do with it, without a binding promise from a credible representative of the copyright owner.This is not evil; it is very understandable. You could say Linus and others are cowards, though, for not taking the risk on behalf of their users... I wouldn't, because Oracle's behaviour is such that the risk far outweighs any perceivable benefits I can see.

author: Marco
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:01:08 pm
content: By 1998 windows was pre-emptive and macos still cooperative, so I'm not sure that's the whole story.

author: RoGeorge
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:02:49 pm
content: There is no absolute good or bad.Good is what suits one's own interests, bad is what doesn't suit one's own interests.What's good for one might be bad for other, and vice-versa.Again, good and bad only makes sense in the context of a given goal.Not trying to argue or to take sides, just pointing out anything can be good or evil depending on the goal to be achieved.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:13:11 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 15, 2020, 03:26:40 pmYou have averydifferent idea of what constitutes evil than I, and I suspect most others, have.QuotePlease don't put words into my mouth just to further your weak argument. It's incredibly easy to win an argument by just making up what one claims other people have said, or at least fool yourself that you have won it. If you claim you're not putting words in my mouth then please provide adirect quotefor me using the word "evil" in the context you describe. Just to give you a chance, I'll extend that to any words that might be read as "evil": 'wicked', 'criminal', 'diabolic' or something similar that areasonable personwould think implies serious moral criticism not mere disagreement.

author: GeorgeOfTheJungle
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:18:22 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 15, 2020, 01:44:59 pmI don't remember that. But I remember their crappy office spotlight plugin that used to leave mdworker stuck at 100% cpu load forever

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:38:32 pm
content: Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 15, 2020, 03:24:02 pmNo, unless you have the later (service packs-included) install media; you can find the system extension there.I do recall it vividly, because I was so proud of having moved from individual machine maintenance to cloning, saving a lot of time and keeping downtime low. (If I recall correctly, the shutdown problem was introduced by the first service pack, in late 1998; of this I'm not sure.) Anyway, I had two classrooms full of PowerPC macs (mostly 7200) running System 7.5.5, and during the spring of 1998 had moved from individual maintenance to cloning -- you could boot System 7.5.5 off a CD-R, wipe the hard drive, then simply copy the installation off the CD-R to the hard drive. The machines had Photoshop, Illustrator, Freehand, Macromedia Director, Pagemaker, Word, Excel, and Netscape; and I had done weeks of work to make it work well -- including things like adjusting the amount of RAM dedicated for each application, to make typical tasks on those machines as efficient as possible --, but still be able to restore a machine back to full operation in fifteen minutes, after a butterfinger user manages to botch it. I was proud of it (I did a lot of work to have a sensible menu, most used icons also on the desktop, and so on), and the savings incurred, but the service release (that I needed to use as the uni switched to a full bulk license) caused the shutdown problem.I was a heavy Windows user back then, and liked to enable all bells and whistles. That included the ribbon start-up thingamajic. (It was an expandable set of icons on the edge of the screen that one could use to quickly start one of the Office applications.) It took me several days of installing Mac Office over and over again (on top of a clean system 7.5.5 off a CD), to find out which part caused the issue. By trial and error, I narrowed it down to the ribbon start-up icon tool. Not installing it let all my systems shut down normally. With it, the machines were stuck in the shut-down sequence.I think it was the following year, 1999, a few months later, that Microsoft released a fix for that. Of course, they never mentioned anything about how the fix was implemented, but I was so keen to know, I compared two PowerPC 7200s, one with the fix, and the other without, and saw the extension in the System folder. With everything exactly the same, except for the extension, the one with the extension had roughly half a megabyte of RAM available.I was stunned. I was only 23 then, and quite gullible, but that kind of a "fix" felt cheating the users to me.Quote from: SiliconWizard on January 15, 2020, 03:24:02 pmI tried to find at least one link, but it was over 20 years ago, so no luck.Quote from: RoGeorge on January 15, 2020, 04:02:49 pmI was asked if I did not feel my use of "pure evil" was hyperbolic. I showed how I define evil, and how my use was sensible according to that definition; no hyperbole. Disagree if you wish.Quote from: Cerebus on January 15, 2020, 04:13:11 pmNo thanks, dad.

author: Cerebus
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 04:47:20 pm
content: Quote from: Nominal Animal on January 15, 2020, 04:38:32 pmThead hominemis all we need as proof of the complete collapse of your argument. Thank you.

author: Nominal Animal
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 15, 2020, 06:06:20 pm
content: Quote from: Cerebus on January 15, 2020, 04:47:20 pmWhat argument? You asked if I thought my characterisation of "pure evil" was "a tad hyperbolic", and I honestly answered I did not think so, because of how I define "evil". There is no argument; you just asked my opinion and I gave it to you.Look, just add me to your ignore list. I know you dislike me; there is no reason to try and snipe at every one of my posts where I try to help others. I'm sure you have better things to do than that, right?

author: Ed.Kloonk
author_rank: Super Contributor
timestamp: January 23, 2020, 11:57:46 pm
content: Quote from: Halcyon on January 12, 2020, 10:10:28 amA lot of this stems from the situation with NTFS and Fat32 support. The modern MS company couldn't say they embrace open source and at the same time keep a straight face by having legal action looming for any distro including a floss implementation of NTFS and wouldn't even help offer one. That has changed thankfully.Oracle is behind even MS in terms of realising that open source is the only way forward. MS are still considered cavemen in this regard by many. That makes Oracle dinosaurs. Linus is right. Fuck Oracle.

author: WorBlux
author_rank: Newbie
timestamp: February 01, 2020, 06:36:43 am
content: ZFS on Linux doesn't have a licensing problem for the end user who isn't redistributing anything.That being said the kernel action to stop exporting fpu_begin was the correct one in compliance with longstanding policy about what is exported and what is not. And since the Linux foundation is almost entirely about redistribution they were correct in not making and exception for a popular but incompatible out of tree module. Yet half the fault was x86's for being an architectural mess. (Other architecture's weren't really affected)Thankfully the OpenZFS devs looked very carefully at the kernel and architecture and found nesting vector code in a no_preempt solved most of the potential conflict of using the floating point units.Quote from: donotdespisethesnake on January 14, 2020, 12:51:52 pmDoubtful, see the doctrine of latches. The new features may be suspect, but Oracle has gutted it's Solaris division and 11.5 seems unlikely. At this point OpenZFS is pulling ahead of the Oracle version, so the danger of something like that decreases as time goes by.The danger is from copyright infringement if you mix the CDDL and the GPL and redistribute. No matter how you mix it at least one, and likely both licenses are being violated.