For the record, yesterday in
irc://irc.freenode.net/#illumos:
[18:41:27] <alanc> there was a claim at one time that Oracle would release sources after S11 shipped, but that seems fairly well disproven now
[18:41:49] <alanc> though of course Oracle never officially comments on such things
[18:42:05] <grahamperrin> the optimist in me, re: encryption
viewtopic.php?p=227#p227[19:18:04] <grahamperrin> Or does the notion of combining two logical volume managers not fly?
[19:29:33] <unsound> grahamperrin: that wouldn't be ZFS-specific would it? I'm sure people are already using ZFS on top of various different encryption layers.
[19:30:08] <unsound> but an open implementation of CoreStorage would be quite useful in general, for interoperability I mean.
[19:42:06] <grahamperrin> unsound: +1 to a ZFS-specific (or -oriented) non-closed approach to encryption that can be taken with all implementations of ZFS
[19:44:19] <unsound> grahamperrin: just wondering... what benefit would using CoreStorage as a more general encryption layer for ZFS bring? what's the advantage compared to other layered solutions?
[20:00:12] <grahamperrin> unsound: on the plus side, it could be an approach that's shared across multiple implementations of ZFS (but not Solaris)
[20:00:52] <grahamperrin> downside: as currently implemented by Apple, CoreStorage is not nearly as flexible as ZFS for LV management.
–
http://echelog.com/logs/browse/openindiana/1352588400