[HN Gopher] RedoxFS is the default filesystem of Redox OS, inspi...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       RedoxFS is the default filesystem of Redox OS, inspired by ZFS
        
       Author : doener
       Score  : 43 points
       Date   : 2025-09-25 21:25 UTC (1 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (doc.redox-os.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (doc.redox-os.org)
        
       | zxspectrum1982 wrote:
       | Why? Why not simply adopt btrfs?
        
         | johncolanduoni wrote:
         | Well they'd have to write their own driver anyway for one. If
         | they were going to take an existing design and write a new
         | driver, ZFS would be the better choice by far. Much longer and
         | broader operational history and much better documentation.
        
           | MadnessASAP wrote:
           | And you might not get sued by Oracle! RedoxOS seems to use
           | the MIT license while OpenZFS is under the CDDL. Given
           | Oracles litigious nature they'd have to make sure none of
           | their code looked like OpenZFS code, even better make sure
           | any of the developers had ever even looked at the ZFS code.
           | 
           | Its much better to hope that OpenZFS decides to create a
           | RedoxOS implementation themselves then to try and make a
           | clean room ZFS implementation.
        
         | hsbauauvhabzb wrote:
         | Why not use ext2 or fat16?
        
         | craftkiller wrote:
         | License is the obvious blocker, aside from all the technical
         | issues[0]. Btrfs is GPL, RedoxOS is MIT, ZFS is CDDL. You can
         | integrate CDDL into an MIT project without problems[1], but due
         | to the viral nature of the GPL, integrating btrfs would have
         | impacts on the rest of the project.
         | 
         | What I'm wondering is what about HAMMER2? It's under a copyfree
         | license and it is developed for a microkernel operating system
         | (DragonflyBSD). Seems like a natural fit.
         | 
         | [0] btrfs holds the distinction of being the _only_ filesystem
         | that has lost all of my data, and it managed to do it twice!
         | Corrupt my drive once, shame on you. Corrupt my drive twice,
         | can 't corrupt my drive again.
         | 
         | [1] further explanation: The CDDL is basically "the GPL but it
         | only applies to the files under the CDDL, rather than the whole
         | project". So the code for ZFS would remain under the CDDL and
         | it would have all the restrictions that come with that, but the
         | rest of the code base can remain under MIT. This is why FreeBSD
         | can have ZFS fully integrated whereas on Linux ZFS is an out-
         | of-tree module.
        
       | jhack wrote:
       | No transparent compression?
        
         | seanw444 wrote:
         | According to the bottom of their landing page [1], it's on the
         | roadmap.
         | 
         | [1] https://www.redox-os.org/
        
       | Modified3019 wrote:
       | According to this https://www.redox-os.org/faq/ Looks like
       | snapshots are planned.
        
       | cyboru wrote:
       | > Redox had a read-only ZFS driver but it was abandoned because
       | of the monolithic nature of ZFS that created problems with the
       | Redox microkernel design.
       | 
       | Curious about the details behind those compatibility problems.
        
         | arghwhat wrote:
         | If it relied on OpenZFS, then I wouldn't be too surprised.
         | 
         | The whole ARC thing for example, sidestepping the general block
         | cache, feels like a major hack resulting from how it was
         | brutally extracted from Solaris at the time...
         | 
         | The way zfs just doesn't "fit" was why I had hope for btrfs...
         | ZFS is still great for a file server, but wouldn't use it on a
         | general purpose machine.
        
       | ladyanita22 wrote:
       | Redox is shaping up to be the most advanced OSS alternative to
       | Linux apart from BSDs.
        
         | snvzz wrote:
         | You might not be aware of Genode[0].
         | 
         | 0. https://genode.org/
        
       | cayleyh wrote:
       | "because of the monolithic nature of ZFS that created problems
       | with the Redox microkernel design"
       | 
       | Anyone have an idea what this actually means and what problems
       | they were having in practice?
        
       | snvzz wrote:
       | >File/directory quantity limit up to 4 billion per 193TiB (2^32 -
       | 1 = 4294967295)
       | 
       | 32bit inodes? why?
       | 
       | Other systems had to go through pains to migrate to 64bit. Why
       | not skip that?
        
         | adgjlsfhk1 wrote:
         | Ext4 and NTFS both have a 2^32-1 limit on number of files as
         | well. Realistically, you never actually want to make tons of
         | files, so I have a pretty hard time seeing this being an issue
         | in practice.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2025-09-25 23:00 UTC)