Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

832 TB – ZFS on Linux

jonkensy.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 165 posts

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#31

Post by wazoox »

rsync wrote: post #7

"I ended up between the Supermicro SSG-6048R-E1CR60L or the SSG-6048R-E1CR90L – the E1CR60L is a 60-bay 4U chassis while the E1CR90L is a 90-bay 4U chassis. This nice part is that no matter which platform you choose Supermicro sells this only as a pre-configured machine – this means that their engineers are going to make sure that the hardware you choose to put in this is all from a known compatibility list. Basicall…

The HGST JBOD is built in a much more robust way than anything from Supermicro anyway. The second generation is almost perfect with its integrated ethernet console and standard micro-SAS ports.

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#33

Post by cmurf »

Do either of these project spec hardware that would work for this use case?

opencompute.org Backblaze storage pod, they're up to v 6.0 now

(Netflix open connect specs supermicro hardware)

Others?

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#34

Post by gtirloni »

rsync wrote: post #13
dsl wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you say what vendor you are using now?

Well, our vendor continues to be IX Systems (for the most part). However, instead of buying exclusively supermicro from them, we are now buying these Hitachi 60bay JBODs: http://www.hgst.com/products/platforms/4U60G2-storage-platfo... It really bugs that supermicro went this way. They used to be a very boring company that did nothing but build great chassis. I used to jokingly say that "supermicro is the rsync.net of…

We once wanted to buy 200+ JBODs from them and they seemed very happy to put us in touch with their engineering team so we could ask for any modifications we wanted. It felt like they were very flexible and knew how to close deals. We ended up buying that quantity but without any modifications.

Maybe they have gone too large and now have to explore the same tactics from other big companies, like you mentioned. That seems the most plausible explanation.

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#35

Post by gruturo »

qeternity wrote: post #16
overcast wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZFS is a native filesystem to FreeBSD, where as in Linux it is not.

Sure but that alone doesn't mean it's any less suitable on Ubuntu. I'm just trying to understand what the differences are in implementation, reliability, etc.

ZFS on FreeBSD and on Illumos has been used, abused, tested and stressed all the way to the Moon and beyond. Loads of people with loads of data over loads time.

This makes bugs appear, and get addressed, and eventually gives you confidence that nothing nasty remains uncorrected, and it won't eat your data.

ZFS on Linux, due to the unfortunate licensing situation, is considerably less tested and thus scary, data-eating bugs are at least a bit more likely to exist.

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#36

Post by panzerboy »

4ad wrote: post #2

you can run ZFS on Ubuntu [...] You could also build this on Solaris with necessary licensing if you wanted to that route but it’d be more expensive. I find it bewildering the author didn't even consider illumos or FreeBSD, where ZFS is a first class citizen.

He explained on Reddit that he has some support from Canonical as well.

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#37

Post by andreiw »

I wish Supermicro had a similar chassis around the Cavium ThunderX. That would make a lot of sense for network-attached storage, regardless of whether one goes with SATA or drops in a SAS adapter or two. Does anyone know if any of the Cavium accelerators (crypto or compression) can improve ZFS perf?

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#38

Post by scottLobster »

tylerjl wrote: post #24
sandGorgon wrote: post #18

The most important line for me was "Today, you can run ZFS on Ubuntu 16.0.4.2 LTS with standard repositories and Canonical’s Ubuntu Advantage Advanced Support. That makes the decision easy." Its highly interesting that Canonical does this with ZFS. I'm not sure why they dont market this more.

I'm only a casual user of ZFS on Linux for personal storage projects, but I've spoken with people who rely very heavily on ZFS on Linux for their small businesses, and it's interesting to hear their perspectives on this. Essentially, because btrfs has failed to deliver on the next-gen filesystem front, ZFS on Linux is such a critical piece of technology that unless Red Hat has an answer soon for out-of-the-box ZFS on…

RedHat is apparently building something new called Stratis based on XFS, they're shooting for delivery within the next 1-2 years. Supposedly it'll be feature-equivalent to ZFS/Btrfs/LVM.

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=Stratis-R...

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#39

Post by secabeen »

sandGorgon wrote: post #18

The most important line for me was "Today, you can run ZFS on Ubuntu 16.0.4.2 LTS with standard repositories and Canonical’s Ubuntu Advantage Advanced Support. That makes the decision easy." Its highly interesting that Canonical does this with ZFS. I'm not sure why they dont market this more.

I'm not sure. Maybe it's because they're not really supporting it all that well. The hole_birth data loss bug is still not fixed in 16.04 LTS.

https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/zfs-linux/+bug/160...

This is a major data loss issue with some workflows and it's pretty significant that Canonical hasn't backported it.

Re: 832 TB – ZFS on Linux

#40

Post by zorked »

gruturo wrote: post #35
qeternity wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure but that alone doesn't mean it's any less suitable on Ubuntu. I'm just trying to understand what the differences are in implementation, reliability, etc.

ZFS on FreeBSD and on Illumos has been used, abused, tested and stressed all the way to the Moon and beyond. Loads of people with loads of data over loads time. This makes bugs appear, and get addressed, and eventually gives you confidence that nothing nasty remains uncorrected, and it won't eat your data. ZFS on Linux, due to the unfortunate licensing situation, is considerably less tested and thus scary, data-eatin…

On the other hand Linux is far more popular so I wouldn't be surprised if ZFS on Linux already clocks more hours of usage than on BSD.
Post reply on HN