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

Linus: Don't Use ZFS

realworldtech.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 571 posts

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#51

Post by dsr_ »

bayindirh wrote: post #29
reacharavindh wrote: post #10

As a heavy user of ZFS and Linux, what else is there that even comes close to what ZFS offers? I want cheap and reliable snapshots, export & import of file systems like ZFS datasets, simple compression, caching facilities(like SLOG and ARC) and decent performance.

Honestly asking, how Btrfs compares to ZFS? There's also Lustre but it's a different beast altogether for a different scenario.

On the surface, btrfs is pretty close to zfs.

Once you actually use them, you discover all the ways that btrfs is a pain and zfs is a (minor) joy:

- snapshot management

- online scrub

- data integrity

- disk management

I lost data from perfectly healthy-appearing btrfs systems twice. I've never lost data on maintained zfs systems, and I now trust a lot more data to zfs than I ever have to btrfs.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#52

Post by lifty »

fgonzag wrote: post #25
reacharavindh wrote: post #10

As a heavy user of ZFS and Linux, what else is there that even comes close to what ZFS offers? I want cheap and reliable snapshots, export & import of file systems like ZFS datasets, simple compression, caching facilities(like SLOG and ARC) and decent performance.

Bcachefs is probably the only thing that will get there. The codebase is clean and we'll mantained, built from solid technology (bcache) and will include most of the ZFS niceties. I just wish more companies would sponsor de project and stop wasting money on BTRFS

I’m looking forward to bcachefs becoming feature complete and upstreamed. We finally have a good chance of having a modern and reliable FS in the Linux kernel. My wish list includes snapshots and per volume encryption.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#53

Post by lmilcin »

unethical_ban wrote: post #47
lmilcin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with ZFS is that it isn't part of Linux kernel. Linux project maintains compatibility with userspace software but it does not maintain compatibility with 3rd party modules and for a good reason. Since modules have access to any internal kernel API it is not possible to change anything within kernel without considering 3rd party code, if you want to keep that code working. For this reason the decision was…

Parent updated their post and my comment is no longer relevant.

I edited it out before I saw your comment.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#54

Post by reacharavindh »

jessant wrote: post #38
nosequel wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

btrfs is not at all reliable, so if you care about your files staying working files, it probably doesn't meet your requirements. It is like the MongoDB 0.1 of filesystems.

Seems pretty reliable these days. Are you commenting based upon personal experience? If so, when was it that you used btrfs?

When it comes to file systems “pretty reliable” these days does not sound very good. Reliability had to have been a fundamental requirement for design of a file system. If not, it sounds like putting lipstick on a pig.

Redhat throwing towel on their support for development does not instill confidence either.

Nothing personally against Btrfs. Just an end user making a file system choice saying what I care about.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#55

Post by TallGuyShort »

unethical_ban wrote: post #47
lmilcin wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with ZFS is that it isn't part of Linux kernel. Linux project maintains compatibility with userspace software but it does not maintain compatibility with 3rd party modules and for a good reason. Since modules have access to any internal kernel API it is not possible to change anything within kernel without considering 3rd party code, if you want to keep that code working. For this reason the decision was…

Parent updated their post and my comment is no longer relevant.

I don't see how it's an insult to the users. It's saying that not allowing ZFS code to be distributed under the GPL and be maintained as part of the Linux kernel, is a disservice to ZFSonLinux users. Which I think is clearly right.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#56

Post by Youden »

jessant wrote: post #26
reacharavindh wrote: post #10

As a heavy user of ZFS and Linux, what else is there that even comes close to what ZFS offers? I want cheap and reliable snapshots, export & import of file systems like ZFS datasets, simple compression, caching facilities(like SLOG and ARC) and decent performance.

Does btrfs met your requirements?

I've tried btrfs without much luck.

btrfs still has a write hole for RAID5/6 (the kind I primarily use) [0] and has since at least 2012.

For a filesystem to have a bug leading to dataloss unpatched for over 8 years is just plain unacceptable.

I've also had issues even without RAID, particularly after power outages. Not minor issues but "your filesystem is gone now, sorry" issues.

[0]: https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/RAID56

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#57

Post by bayindirh »

znpy wrote: post #48
bayindirh wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Honestly, I wouldn't bash him for this comment. Not everyone runs a 10+ TB array at their home for storage and backup purposes. ZFS doesn't primarily target single disks and small arrays anyway. :)

people probably will, in a few years. rotational disks are getting cheaper and cheaper, 10TB disks in two years might cost as little as 2TB disks today (i got a 2TB disk for like 50€ off Amazon).

> people probably will, in a few years.

Yes, but without the array as you stated. We have 300+ 10TB disks at our datacenter today and, ZFS is relevant at this disk count, I/O and client load.

Running ZFS at small scale is raising a cow at home for a bucket of raw milk. It's more of a fun curiosity rather than a production level operation.

I'd run LVM or md or something similar at home instead of a full blown ZFS setup for practical reasons.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#58

Post by maximente »

i wouldn't use ZFS either. my guess is 90% of ZFS users have never run failure scenarios and grappled with potential failure modes of ZFS, nor even know that you really need ECC RAM to run ZFS without fear of existential data corruption due to bit flips.

furthermore, the allure of ZFS means people aren't testing their disaster plans until it's too late, bc ZFS is "resilient".

lastly, data recovery is expensive as all hell if even possible. i am talking order of magnitude four figures for 100s of GBs and sketchy probabilities.

ZFS is the ultimate "pet" in the pets vs. cattle continuum. in a world where shoddy engineering and "break things fast" is the zeitgeist, i'm happy to use a classic dumb FS like ext4 and pathologically backing it up and testing said backups.

i would not risk any of my personal treasured data to ZFS due to inherent existential threats. i would implore ZFS users to evaluate and test their setups, and especially use ECC RAM - like, starting now - to protect their assets.

Re: Linus: Don't Use ZFS

#59

Post by jasoneckert »

bromonkey wrote: post #27

"Don't use ZFS. It's that simple. It was always more of a buzzword than anything else, I feel, and the licensing issues just make it a non-starter for me." - Linus I have a strong feeling Linus has never actually used ZFS.

Probably not, given that statement. There's a reason why nearly everything I deal with today in large enterprise uses ZFS.
Post reply on HN