This has been floating around for 2 years at this point so might be a long while until it gets in. Interesting, QNAP somehow added this feature into the code that their QuTS Hero NASes uses. I'm not sure how solid or tested the QNAP code is but it's solid enough that they're shipping it in production.
OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
11–20 of 177 posts
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#12The big news here seems to be that iXsystems (the company behind FreeNAS/TrueNAS) is sponsoring this work now. This PR supersedes ones that was opened back in 2021 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/12225#issuecomment-16101...
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#13Earlier quoted context omitted.
So long as the kernel developers are actively hostile to ZFS… You will take your Btrfs and you will like it.
I’m holding out for bcachefs and still building ZFS via dkms on current kernels like a madman.
I’m running bcachefs on my desktop right now.
It’s promising, but there’s… bugs. Right now only performance oriented ones, that I’ve noticed, but I’d wait a bit longer.
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#14It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(
We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
> successor filesystem
Which one?
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#15Earlier quoted context omitted.
We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
> successor filesystem Which one?
bcachefs presumably
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#16It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(
We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
> The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
Source, for someone who isn't following kernel mailing lists?
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#17Finally :-)
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#18It bothers me so much that zfs is not into mainline linux. I know it’s due to the license incompatibility… :(
Has the whole license incompatibility thing actually been tested/litigated in court? I heard Canonical has (at least at some point) shipped prebuilt ZFS. I understand that in-tree inclusion brings its own set of problems, but I’m just asking about redistribution of binaries - the same binaries you are allowed to build locally.
It would be nice to have a precedent deciding on this bullshit argument once and for all so distros can freely ship prebuilt binary modules and bring Linux to the modern times when it comes to filesystems.
The whole situation is ridiculous. I'd understand if this was about money, but who exactly gets hurt by users getting a prebuilt module from somewhere, vs building exactly the same thing locally from freely-available source?
Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#19Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
We may get a successor filesystem before that particular situation is sorted out.. By all accounts mainline is at best not interested, if not actively against ZFS on Linux. The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously.
> The last few kerfuffles around symbols used by the out-of-tree module laid out the position rather unambiguously. Source, for someone who isn't following kernel mailing lists?
I was thinking of this thread from 5.0 in particular (2019, time flies!)
https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/