zfs discuss - May 2011 - ZFS, Oracle and Nexenta

I have a more generall question about intellectual rights around ZFS, when
taking a look at the storage solution NexentaStor.

Perhaps not necessary to mention, but to be complete: NexentaStor has created a
Open Source SAN solution that runs on commodity hardware. Compellent for example
has a NAS based upon Nexenta. NexentaStor is based upon the ZFS filesystem and
sounds (for that reason) very promising. Now i wonder what the threats are to
this and if Oracle is one of them, when reading for example in a Gartner report:

"Gartner cautions about the uncertain nature of future developments of the
open-source ZFS code, as Oracle intends to focus on monetizing ZFS." *

And on the Register i read:

"One outcome is that Oracle agrees to license the relevant patents
pertaining to ZFS from NetApp. This would then open the way for Coraid and other
ZFS-using storage suppliers to have to license them as well, significantly
upsetting their business models unless the license fees are set low." **

I would like to know what grip Oracle (or perhaps NetApp) has upon ZFS. Are
parts of the code owned by Oracle? Can they put claims on parts of ZFS?

Regards, Hans.

* 
http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/hitachi/vol3/article2/article2.html?WT.ac=us_hp_sp1r21&_p=v
** http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07/06/netapp_coraid/
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there.

Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that is
already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS. Oracle
might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta''s ZFS is open and can not
be closed.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On 5/24/2011 8:28 AM, Orvar Korvar wrote:
> The netapp lawsuit is solved. No conflicts there.
>
> Regarding ZFS, it is open under CDDL license. The leaked source code that
is already open is open. Nexenta is using the open sourced version of ZFS.
Oracle might close future ZFS versions, but Nexenta''s ZFS is open and
can not be closed.
There is no threat to Nexenta from the ZFS code itself; the license that 
it was made available under explicitly has Oracle allow use for any 
patents *Oracle* might have.

However, since the terms of the NetApp/Oracle suit aren''t available 
publicly, and I seriously doubt that NetApp gave up its patent claims,  
it could still be feasible for NetApp to sue Nexenta or whomever for 
alleged violations of *NetApp''s* patents in the ZFS code.

That is, ZFS has no copyright infringement issues for 3rd parties. It 
has no patent issues from Oracle.  It *could* have patent issues from 
NetApp.

The possible impact of that is beyond my knowledge. IANAL. Nor do I 
speak for Oracle in any manner, official or unofficial.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

Hi Erik and Kebabber,

Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best conclusion
would be then that Nexenta has it''s own version of ZFS and has nothing
to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it''s uncertain what
NetApp might come up with as the details aren''t published?

Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps that
the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor as
well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation of
it?

Regards, Hans
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS appliance with added 
WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics, L2ARc and ZIL with SSD  etc

On 5/24/2011 2:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote:
> Hi Erik and Kebabber,
>
> Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best
conclusion would be then that Nexenta has it''s own version of ZFS and
has nothing to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it''s
uncertain what NetApp might come up with as the details aren''t
published?
>
> Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS... Perhaps
that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with that, NexentaStor
as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up their implementation
of it?
>
> Regards, Hans
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: laotsao.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110524/f3ab5a1c/attachment.vcf>

> IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS
> appliance with added 
> WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics,
> L2ARc and ZIL with SSD  etc
Last week i''ve seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD in a Boston NexentaStor
solution.
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

yes
IMHO, oracle and nexenta are target different customer


On 5/24/2011 3:30 PM, Hans Rattink wrote:
>> IMHO, oracle would prefer customer go with ZFS
>> appliance with added
>> WebGUI and all the extra support like Analytics,
>> L2ARc and ZIL with SSD  etc
> Last week i''ve seen mirrored ZIL upon ZEUS SSD in a Boston
NexentaStor solution.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: laotsao.vcf
Type: text/x-vcard
Size: 632 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110524/259278b0/attachment.vcf>

On May 24, 2011, at 11:30 AM, Hans Rattink wrote:
> Hi Erik and Kebabber,
> 
> Thanks for your answers. Do i summarize it right saying: the best
conclusion would be then that Nexenta has it''s own version of ZFS and
has nothing to fear of Oracle other ZFS-developpers but that it''s
uncertain what NetApp might come up with as the details aren''t
published?
> 
> Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS...
Simply means that if you want ZFS from Oracle, you have to pay money.
> Perhaps that the advantage of ZFS for others like Compellent (and with
that, NexentaStor as well) might be become less in future if Oracle speeds up
their implementation of it?
There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors desire.
Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
 -- richard

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
<richard.elling at gmail.com> wrote:
> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors
desire.
> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than Nexenta''s v30.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

Thanks all, this cleared up some grey details for me!
-- 
This message posted from opensolaris.org

On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
> <richard.elling at gmail.com> wrote:
>> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors
desire.
>> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
> 
> ... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than Nexenta''s
v30.
It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We are
moving forward
with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered system of
the past.

Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in Solaris 10
:-)
 -- richard

On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
> <richard.elling at gmail.com>  wrote:
>> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the contributors
desire.
>> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
> ... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than Nexenta''s
v30.
>
That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible.

Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of 
ZFS are inevitable.

-- 
Ian.

Hi Brandon,

Thanks for the details. Sounds to me like Nexenta is in the lead!

Kind regards,
Hans Rattink





2011/5/24 Richard Elling <richard.elling at gmail.com>
> On May 24, 2011, at 12:49 PM, Brandon High wrote:
>
> > On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
> > <richard.elling at gmail.com> wrote:
> >> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the
contributors
> desire.
> >> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
> >
> > ... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than
Nexenta''s v30.
>
> It is safe to say Nexenta is unlikely to ever have a pool version 30. We
> are moving forward
> with the new versioning method that supercedes the (limited) numbered
> system of the past.
>
> Of course, Oracle broke this first by not implementing version 21 in
> Solaris 10 :-)
>  -- richard
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110524/b70c3b30/attachment.html>

Well
With various fock of opensource project
E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
There are not guarantee to be compatible 

Sent from my iPad
Hung-Sheng Tsao ( LaoTsao) Ph.D

On May 24, 2011, at 4:40 PM, Ian Collins <ian at ianshome.com> wrote:
> On 05/25/11 07:49 AM, Brandon High wrote:
>> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Richard Elling
>> <richard.elling at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>> There are many ZFS implementations, each evolving as the
contributors desire.
>>> Diversity and innovation is a good thing.
>> ... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than
Nexenta''s v30.
>> 
> That could be a disaster for everyone if they are incompatible.
> 
> Now with Oracle development in secret, I guess incompatible branches of ZFS
are inevitable.
> 
> -- 
> Ian.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High <bhigh at freaks.com>
wrote:
>... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than Nexenta''s
v30.
This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
all of which are incompatible.

I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves.  I don''t know if Oracle
was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all
the other OSS working groups it was a member of, having Oracle onboard
might be a disadvantage).

-- 
Peter Jeremy

On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
<peter.jeremy at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
> group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves. ?I don''t know if
Oracle
> was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all
Richard would probably know for certain.

There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an
Oracle ZFS. Hopefully neither side will actively try to break
compatibility.

-B

-- 
Brandon High : bhigh at freaks.com

On May 24, 2011, at 3:46 PM, Brandon High wrote:
> On Tue, May 24, 2011 at 3:17 PM, Peter Jeremy
> <peter.jeremy at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
>> I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
>> group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves.  I don''t know if
Oracle
>> was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all
> 
> Richard would probably know for certain.
Yes, Oracle has representation on the ZFS working group.
> There will probably be a fork at some point to an OSS ZFS and an
> Oracle ZFS.
That break occurred in August 2010.
> Hopefully neither side will actively try to break
> compatibility.
Yes! A solution to the versioning issue appears to have reached consensus.
I observe that the current Solaris 10/11 versioning incompatibility issue
doesn''t
seem to be causing rioting in the streets :-)
 -- richard

> Still i wonder what Gartner means with Oracle monetizing on ZFS..
It simply means that Oracle want to make money from ZFS (as is normal  
for technology companies with their own technology). The reason this  
might cause uncertainty for ZFS is that maintaining or helping make  
the open source version of ZFS better may be seen by Oracle as  
contradictory to them making money from it.
That said, what is already open source cannot be un-open sourced, as  
others have said...

cheers Andy.

Peter Jeremy <peter.jeremy at alcatel-lucent.com> wrote:
> On 2011-May-25 03:49:43 +0800, Brandon High <bhigh at freaks.com>
wrote:
> >... unless Oracle''s zpool v30 is different than
Nexenta''s v30.
>
> This would be unfortunate but no worse than the current situation
> with UFS - Solaris, *BSD and HP Tru64 all have native UFS filesystems,
> all of which are incompatible.
There are verious media formats out, but I know of only one format that defines 
an enhencement method that really allows enhancements from various vendors 
without problems and without the need for a common format commitee: tar.

The current enhanced POSIX tar format defines an enhancement method proposed by 
Sun that works by defining a framework to introduce new features that all have 
names with company prefixes. 

What Sun defines for ZFS enhancements on the other side is bases on ideas that 
are at least 30 years old and that try to prevent other entities from 
introducing features, so it is not useful in a OSS world.
> I believe the various OSS projects that use ZFS have formed a working
> group to co-ordinate ZFS amongst themselves.  I don''t know if
Oracle
> was invited to join (though given the way Oracle has behaved in all
> the other OSS working groups it was a member of, having Oracle onboard
> might be a disadvantage).
I recently made a proposal for a way to handle vendor specific enhancements but 
nobody did contact me. Are you sure that such a group exists?

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
> With various fock of opensource project
> E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
> There are not guarantee to be compatible 
I hope at least they''ll try. Just in case I want to import/export
zpools
between Nexenta and OpenIndiana?

-- 
No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen,
dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy
without the benevolence of the author.

On 5/25/2011 4:37 AM, Frank Van Damme wrote:
> Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
>> With various fock of opensource project
>> E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
>> There are not guarantee to be compatible
> I hope at least they''ll try. Just in case I want to import/export
zpools
> between Nexenta and OpenIndiana
Given the new "versioning" governing board, I think that''s
highly likely.

However, do remember that you might not be able to import a pool from 
another system, simply because your system can''t support the 
featureset.  Ideally, it would be nice if you could just import the pool 
and use the features your current OS supports, but that''s pretty darned
dicey, and I''d be very happy if importing worked when both systems 
supported the same featureset.

-- 
Erik Trimble
Java System Support
Mailstop:  usca22-123
Phone:  x17195
Santa Clara, CA
Timezone: US/Pacific (GMT-0800)

This will absolutely remain possible -- as the party responsible for
Nexenta''s kernel, I can assure that pool import/export compatibility is
a key requirement for Nexenta''s product.

  -- Garrett D''Amore

On May 25, 2011, at 3:39 PM, "Frank Van Damme" <frank.vandamme at
gmail.com> wrote:
> Op 24-05-11 22:58, LaoTsao schreef:
>> With various fock of opensource project
>> E.g. Zfs, opensolaris, openindina etc there are all different
>> There are not guarantee to be compatible 
> 
> I hope at least they''ll try. Just in case I want to import/export
zpools
> between Nexenta and OpenIndiana?
> 
> -- 
> No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen,
> dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy
> without the benevolence of the author.
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

>However, do remember that you might not be able to import a pool from 
>another system, simply because your system can''t support the 
>featureset.  Ideally, it would be nice if you could just import the pool 
>and use the features your current OS supports, but that''s pretty
darned
>dicey, and I''d be very happy if importing worked when both systems 
>supported the same featureset.
You can use "zpool create" to set a specific version; this should
allow
you to create a pool usable in a number of different systems.

Casper

"Garrett D''Amore" <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many of the
former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>
> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has been
agreed upon widely already, and implementation should be starting on it. 
Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience in
ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features.
I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist.

Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public. 

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

You are welcome to your beliefs.   There are many groups that do standards that
do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of any standards bodies
that *do* hold open meetings.

  -- Garrett D''Amore

On May 25, 2011, at 4:09 PM, "Joerg Schilling" <Joerg.Schilling at
fokus.fraunhofer.de> wrote:
> "Garrett D''Amore" <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> 
>> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many of
the former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>> 
>> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has
been agreed upon widely already, and implementation should be starting on it. 
Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience in
ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features.
> 
> I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist.
> 
> Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public. 
> 
> J??rg
> 
> -- 
> EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J??rg Schilling D-13353
Berlin
>       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
>       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
> URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Garrett D''Amore <garrett at
nexenta.com> wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. ? There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public. ?In fact, I can''t think of any standards
bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
>
I think he may mean open to public application.  Not everyone will be
accepted or partake in the meetings, but anyone can apply.  Right now
the group is secret - there''s no or little information on
who/when/where or anything.  It''s basically the ZFS Standards Mafia
maybe you guys live by..

"Rule #1 - Don''t talk about ZFS club"

;)

./C

Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end 
everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS 
implementation. However there is surely a bad aftertaste of such a 
policy. Someone can''t complain  about Oracles position to opensource
and
put the development of ZFS themself into a secret circle. But as i wrote 
a long time ago, a lot of things were done because of business 
considerations, not because of "open source is great".


Am 25.05.2011 14:15, schrieb Garrett D''Amore:
> You are welcome to your beliefs.   There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of any standards
bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
>
>    -- Garrett D''Amore
>
> On May 25, 2011, at 4:09 PM, "Joerg Schilling"<Joerg.Schilling
at fokus.fraunhofer.de>  wrote:
>
>> "Garrett D''Amore"<garrett at nexenta.com> 
wrote:
>>
>>> I am sure that the group exists ... I am a part of it, as are many
of the former Oracle ZFS engineers and a number of other ZFS contributors.
>>>
>>> Whatever your proposal was, we have not seen it, but a solution has
been agreed upon widely already, and implementation should be starting on it. 
Ultimately this solution is based on people with a huge amount of experience in
ZFS, and with an eye towards future ZFS features.
>> I tend to believe that a group that acts in the secret does not exist.
>>
>> Standardization nowerdays typically is done in the public.
>>
>> J??rg
>>
>> -- 
>> EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J??rg Schilling
D-13353 Berlin
>>        js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)
>>        joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
>> URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/
ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily
> _______________________________________________
> zfs-discuss mailing list
> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org
> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss

"Garrett D''Amore" <garrett at nexenta.com> wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs.   There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of any standards
bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
You probybly don''t know POSIX.....

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:15 AM, Garrett D''Amore <garrett at
nexenta.com> wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs. ? There are many groups that do standards
that
> do not meet in public. ?In fact, I can''t think of any standards
bodies that *do* hold
> open meetings.
    The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the committee
members. Committee membership is not open to anyone who wants to be on
the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the
committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness.

    I think it would help the ''ZFS Standards Committee'' if
it''s
existence, membership, goals, and decisions were more public. I am not
suggesting a high level of detail. For example, membership could be
identified as: Members include representatives from Oracle and
Nexenta, send an email to the contact at zfs-standard.org to contact a
committee member.

   Knowing that something is happening and that the right players are
at the table is important to having trust in the process and results.

-- 
{--------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players

Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenkamp at sun.com schreef:
> Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> implementation
Why? Given that ZFS is Solaris ZFS just as well as Nexenta ZFS just as
well as illumos ZFS, by what reason is Oracle ZFS being declared the
standard or reference? Because "they write the first so-many lines" or
because they make the biggest sales on it (kinda hard to sell licenses
to an open source product)?


-- 
No part of this copyright message may be reproduced, read or seen,
dead or alive or by any means, including but not limited to telepathy
without the benevolence of the author.

On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs.  There are many groups that do 
> standards that do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of
any
> standards bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
The IETF holds totally open meetings.  I hope that you are 
appreciative of that since they brought you the Internet and enabled 
us to send this email.  Clearly it works.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 8:53 AM, Frank Van Damme
<frank.vandamme at gmail.com>wrote:
> Op 25-05-11 14:27, joerg.moellenkamp at sun.com schreef:
> > Well, at first ZFS development is no standard body and at the end
> > everything has to be measured in compatibility to the Oracle ZFS
> > implementation
>
> Why? Given that ZFS is Solaris ZFS just as well as Nexenta ZFS just as
> well as illumos ZFS, by what reason is Oracle ZFS being declared the
> standard or reference? Because "they write the first so-many
lines" or
> because they make the biggest sales on it (kinda hard to sell licenses
> to an open source product)?
>

Because they OWN the code, and the patents to protect the code.

--Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110525/4fce5c28/attachment.html>

On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
>    The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
> one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
> they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the
committee
> members. Committee membership is not open to anyone who wants to be on
> the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the
> committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness.
Not necessarily madness.  As I mentioned to Garrett, the IETF 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF) holds totally open meetings and 
mailing lists.  Anyone who shows up can vote on whatever is discussed 
and all votes count as equal.  There is no need to pay for attendance, 
no need to apply for acceptance, no need to show an ID at the door, 
and anyone can just walk in, yet actions and demonstrated 
implementations speak louder than any words.  Anyone can write an RFC 
as long as it meets certain standards.  However, the IETF also has a 
"working code" requirement and demands several independent 
interoperable implementations before some new interface can be 
accepted for the standards track.

The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor 
interference.  Vendors who want to participate in defining an 
interoperable standard can achieve substantial success.  Vendors who 
only want their own way encounter deafening silence and isolation.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
<bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> interference. ?Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
> standard can achieve substantial success. ?Vendors who only want their own
> way encounter deafening silence and isolation.
    There have been a number of RFC''s effectively written by one
vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance", the
biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC''s
I''ll
make sure to forward you a copy.

    The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
include underscore "_". This was specifically to support
Microsoft''s
existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.

-- 
{--------1---------2---------3---------4---------5---------6---------7---------}
Paul Kraus
-> Senior Systems Architect, Garnet River ( http://www.garnetriver.com/ )
-> Sound Coordinator, Schenectady Light Opera Company (
http://www.sloctheater.org/ )
-> Technical Advisor, RPI Players

I actually didn''t know that their meetings were totally open. 
I''m more familiar with IEEE, T10, and similar bodies which are most
definitely not open.

  -- Garrett D''Amore

On May 25, 2011, at 6:12 PM, "Bob Friesenhahn" <bfriesen at
simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
> 
>> You are welcome to your beliefs.  There are many groups that do
standards that do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of any
standards bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
> 
> The IETF holds totally open meetings.  I hope that you are appreciative of
that since they brought you the Internet and enabled us to send this email. 
Clearly it works.
> 
> Bob
> -- 
> Bob Friesenhahn
> bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us,
http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
> GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:01 AM, Paul Kraus <paul at kraus-haus.org>
wrote:
> On Wed, May 25, 2011 at 10:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn
> <bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us> wrote:
>
> > The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
> > interference.  Vendors who want to participate in defining an
> interoperable
> > standard can achieve substantial success.  Vendors who only want their
> own
> > way encounter deafening silence and isolation.
>
>    There have been a number of RFC''s effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance",
the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC''s
I''ll
> make sure to forward you a copy.
>
>    The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
> specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
> include underscore "_". This was specifically to support
Microsoft''s
> existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
> that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.
>
>
>
Except it wasn''t just Microsoft at all.  There were three vendors on
the
original RFC, and one of the authors was Paul Vixie... the author of BIND.
http://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc2782.txt

You should probably do a bit of research before throwing out claims like
that to try to shoot someone down.

--Tim
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110525/2a59496d/attachment.html>

Paul Kraus <paul at kraus-haus.org> wrote:
>     There have been a number of RFC''s effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance",
the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC''s
I''ll
> make sure to forward you a copy.
>
>     The only one that comes to mind immediately was the change to the
> specification of what characters were permissible in DNS records to
> include underscore "_". This was specifically to support
Microsoft''s
> existing naming convention. I am NOT saying that was a bad change, but
> that it was a change driven by ONE vendor.
Im Y2001, Microsoft first tried to standardize to permit chars to be 16 bit
also, in order to make their UCS-2 based system POSIX compliant. We have been
able to prevent this from happening.

A few weeks later, they tried to make '':'' an illegal character
in filenames
in order to make "foo:bar" an extended attribute file "bar"
located in file
"foo". We have been able to prevent this too.

The people who actively work in a standard commitee decide with their majority 
and if your example with Microsoft has been something that was not acceptable 
by others, it did not happen.

BTW: I am not an OpenGroup member and I did never pay anything. The POSIX 
standard (since 2001) nevertheless contains proposals from me and my name is
listed in the standard as contributor/reviewer......all meetings are open 
(phone and IRC) and there is an open mailing list.

J?rg

-- 
 EMail:joerg at schily.isdn.cs.tu-berlin.de (home) J?rg Schilling D-13353 Berlin
       js at cs.tu-berlin.de                (uni)  
       joerg.schilling at fokus.fraunhofer.de (work) Blog:
http://schily.blogspot.com/
 URL:  http://cdrecord.berlios.de/private/ ftp://ftp.berlios.de/pub/schily

On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
>
>    There have been a number of RFC''s effectively written by one
> vendor in order to be able to claim "open standards compliance",
the
> biggest corporate offender in this regard, but clearly not the only
> one, is Microsoft. The next time I run across one of these RFC''s
I''ll
> make sure to forward you a copy.
RFC means "Request For Comment".  Unless an RFC has survived the 
grueling standards-track process, it is no more than a documented idea 
put out for public comment.  Indeed, the majority of RFCs fail this 
process, and many do not even try to enter it but simply exist to 
document an idea or a vendor''s existing protocol.  I am impressed if 
Microsoft still produces new ideas worthy of putting in a document.

This sort of open RFC process would be good for zfs because it 
provides ample paths to utter failure while winnowing out the good 
ideas which achieve rough consensus and interoperability.

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On May 25, 2011, at 7:27 AM, Bob Friesenhahn wrote:
> On Wed, 25 May 2011, Paul Kraus wrote:
> 
>>   The standards committees I have observed (I have never been on
>> one) are generally in the audio space and not the computer, but while
>> they welcome "guests", the decisions are reserved for the
committee
>> members. Committee membership is not open to anyone who wants to be on
>> the committee, but those with a degree of expertise in the area the
>> committee is addressing. Anything else leads to madness.
> 
> Not necessarily madness.  As I mentioned to Garrett, the IETF
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IETF) holds totally open meetings and mailing
lists.  Anyone who shows up can vote on whatever is discussed and all votes
count as equal.  There is no need to pay for attendance, no need to apply for
acceptance, no need to show an ID at the door, and anyone can just walk in, yet
actions and demonstrated implementations speak louder than any words.  Anyone
can write an RFC as long as it meets certain standards.  However, the IETF also
has a "working code" requirement and demands several independent
interoperable implementations before some new interface can be accepted for the
standards track.
> 
> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
interference.  Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
standard can achieve substantial success.  Vendors who only want their own way
encounter deafening silence and isolation.
Actually, this doesn''t always work. There have been attempts to stack
the deck
and force votes at IETF. One memorable meeting was more of a flashmob than a
standards meeting :-)

The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code are represented in the ZFS
Working
Group. This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and
organizations.
 -- richard

On Wed, 25 May 2011, Richard Elling wrote:
>>
>> The method the IETF uses seems to be particularly immune to vendor
interference.  Vendors who want to participate in defining an interoperable
standard can achieve substantial success.  Vendors who only want their own way
encounter deafening silence and isolation.
>
> Actually, this doesn''t always work. There have been attempts to
stack the deck
> and force votes at IETF. One memorable meeting was more of a flashmob than
a
> standards meeting :-)
I totally agree.  In fact a large fraction of efforts at the IETF 
fail, and failure can be a good thing.
> The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code are represented in the
ZFS Working
> Group. This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and
organizations.
The error in the statement above is that most key stakeholders are not 
represented.  I consider myself to be a key stakeholder in that I have 
entrusted my precious data to zfs.  Stakeholder is not necessarily the 
same as a famous zfs software developer or someone who specifically 
invests money in a company doing zfs development.  We are stakeholders 
too!

Bob
-- 
Bob Friesenhahn
bfriesen at simple.dallas.tx.us, http://www.simplesystems.org/users/bfriesen/
GraphicsMagick Maintainer,    http://www.GraphicsMagick.org/

On 05/26/11 12:15 AM, Garrett D''Amore wrote:
> You are welcome to your beliefs.   There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public.  In fact, I can''t think of any standards
bodies that *do* hold open meetings.
ISO language standards committees may not hold public meetings, but all 
their materials are public and they invite discussion.  Why can''t ZFS 
follow this model?  What''s (apparently because we don''t know)
happening
now to something born out of open source is appalling.

The only beneficiaries from all this secrecy are the nay-slayers.

-- 
Ian.

On 05/26/11 04:21 AM, Richard Elling wrote:
> Actually, this doesn''t always work. There have been attempts to
stack the deck
> and force votes at IETF. One memorable meeting was more of a flashmob than
a
> standards meeting :-)
>
Is there a video :)
> The key stakeholders and contributors of ZFS code are represented in the
ZFS Working
> Group.
Does that include users?  If so by whom?  Or is that another secret?
> This is very similar to working groups in other standards bodies and
organizations.
Except for the secrecy.

Please, by all means hold private meetings, but do follow the ISO 
programming language standards committee model and publish minutes and 
other material.  Encourage feedback on open mail lists and engage with 
the user community.

-- 
Ian.

On May 25, 2011 7:15 AM, "Garrett D&apos;Amore" <garrett at
nexenta.com> wrote:
>
> You are welcome to your beliefs.   There are many groups that do standards
that do not meet in public.  [...]

True.
> [...] In fact, I can''t think of any standards bodies that *do*
hold open
meetings.

I can: the IETF, for example.  All business of the IETF is transacted or
confirmed on open participation mailing lists, and IETF meetings are known
as NOTE WELL meetings because of the notice given at their opening regarding
the fact that meeting is public and resulting considerations regarding,
e.g., trade secrets.

Mind you, there are many more standards setting organizations that
don''t
have open participation, such as OASIS, ISO, and so on.  I don''t
begrudge
you starting closed, our even staying closed, though I would prefer that at
least the output of any ZFS standards org be open.  Also, I would recommend
that you eventually consider creating a new open participation list for
non-members (separate from any members-only list).

Nico
--
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110526/f476bef0/attachment.html>