ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
arstechnica.com
ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
1–10 of 198 posts
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#2I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;)
ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#3I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
Licensing. Similarly, otherwise it would've been included in macOS a long time ago (as the default fs according to some..)
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#4I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
RAM?
Everytime I looked into setting up a freenas box, every hardware guide insisted that ungodly amounts of absolutely-has-to-be-ECC RAM was essential, and I just gave up at that point.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#5I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
RAM? Everytime I looked into setting up a freenas box, every hardware guide insisted that ungodly amounts of absolutely-has-to-be-ECC RAM was essential, and I just gave up at that point.
The freenas hardware requirements themselves say
"8 GB RAM (ECC recommended but not required)"
https://www.freenas.org/hardware-requirements/
I myself use freenas with 16GB of non-ECC ram.
Of course it is possible to have a bit flip in memory that is then dutifully stored incorrectly by ZFS to disk, but this was a possibility without ZFS as well.
I've actually been waiting for this feature for since I first setup my pool. It seemed theoretically possible we were just waiting for an implementation.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#6I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
RAM? Everytime I looked into setting up a freenas box, every hardware guide insisted that ungodly amounts of absolutely-has-to-be-ECC RAM was essential, and I just gave up at that point.
Neither quantity nor ECC is essential.
ZFS defaults to assuming it is the primary reason for your box to exist, but it only takes two lines to define more reasonable RAM usage: zfs_arc_min and zfs_arc_max. On a NAS type server, I would think setting the max to half of your RAM is reasonable. Maybe 3/4 if you never do anything except storage.
ECC is not recommended because ZFS has some kind of special vulnerability without it; ECC is recommended because ZFS has taken care of all the more likely chances of undetectable corruption, so that's the next step.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#7I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
RAM? Everytime I looked into setting up a freenas box, every hardware guide insisted that ungodly amounts of absolutely-has-to-be-ECC RAM was essential, and I just gave up at that point.
Heh so you have that backwards. All RAM should be ECC if you care about what’s stored in it. It’s not a ZFS requirement, it’s just that ZFS specifically cares about data integrity so it advises you to use ECC RAM. But it’s not like any other file system is immune from random RAM corruption: it’s not, it just won’t tell you about it.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#8I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
Licensing. Similarly, otherwise it would've been included in macOS a long time ago (as the default fs according to some..)
I do believe that the license was fine for macOS but when Oracle bought Sun that killed it cold.
Jobs never liked anybody other than himself holding all the cards. Having Ellison and Oracle holding the keys to ZFS was just never going to fly.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#9I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
RAM? Everytime I looked into setting up a freenas box, every hardware guide insisted that ungodly amounts of absolutely-has-to-be-ECC RAM was essential, and I just gave up at that point.
The "you need at least 32GB of memory and it has to be ECC, or don't even bother trying to use ZFS" crowd has done some serious harm to ZFS adoption. Sure, that's what you need if you want excellent data integrity guarantees and to use all of ZFS' advanced features. If you're fine with merely way-better-than-most-other-filesystems data integrity guarantees and using only most of ZFS' advanced features, you don't need those.
Re: ZFS fans, rejoice – RAIDz expansion will be a thing soon
#10I'll believe it when I see it, why anyone uses BTRFs (UnRaid or any other form of software raid that isn't ZFS) is still beyond me. At least when we're not talking SSD's ;) ZFS is incredible, curious to mess around with these new features!
Licensing. Similarly, otherwise it would've been included in macOS a long time ago (as the default fs according to some..)
And it's arguably even a bigger issue on Linux distros.