Live data from Hacker News

OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

github.com

31–40 of 177 posts

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#31
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/

It’s sad to see that free software under a license (and movement) that was born out of someone’s frustration with closed-source printer drivers (acting as DRM, albeit inadvertently) appears to include similar DRM whose sole purpose is to restrict usage of a (seemingly arbitrary) selection of symbols.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#32
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was thinking of this thread from 5.0 in particular (2019, time flies!) https://lore.kernel.org/all/20190110182413.GA6932@kroah.com/

It’s sad to see that free software under a license (and movement) that was born out of someone’s frustration with closed-source printer drivers (acting as DRM, albeit inadvertently) appears to include similar DRM whose sole purpose is to restrict usage of a (seemingly arbitrary) selection of symbols.

It is. That said, I can't fault people too much for being afraid of the lawnmower. People have been mowed for much less.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#33
post #30

I wish Apple and Oracle would have just sorted things out and made ZFS the main filesystem for the Mac. Way back in the day when they first designed Time Machine, it was supposed to just be a GUI for ZFS snapshots. How cool would it be if we had a great GUI for ZFS (snapshots, volume management, etc.). I could buy a new external disk, add it to a pool, have seamless storage expansion. It would be great. Ah, what coul…

yeah imagine a world where you could use time machine to backup 500gb parallels volumes where only the diff was stored between snapshots rather than needing to back up the whole 500gb volume every single time.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#34
post #30

I wish Apple and Oracle would have just sorted things out and made ZFS the main filesystem for the Mac. Way back in the day when they first designed Time Machine, it was supposed to just be a GUI for ZFS snapshots. How cool would it be if we had a great GUI for ZFS (snapshots, volume management, etc.). I could buy a new external disk, add it to a pool, have seamless storage expansion. It would be great. Ah, what coul…

yeah imagine a world where you could use time machine to backup 500gb parallels volumes where only the diff was stored between snapshots rather than needing to back up the whole 500gb volume every single time.

Right, that would be nice wouldn't it?

As a workaround, you can create a sparsevolume to store your parallels volume. Sparsevolumes are stores in bands, and only bands that change get backed up. It might be slightly more efficient.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#35

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.

Qnap does recommend a full backup before doing so, which tells me it's not exactly production ready as you and I would think of it.

I would expect any storage array to recommend a full backup any time you are messing with the physical disks. even "production ready" features one would not add, remove, or do anything with the array with out a full backup.

"Production" systems should not even be considered production unless you have a backup of them,

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#36
I’m frustrated because this feature was mentioned by Schwartz when it was still in beta. I thought a new era of home computing was about to start. It didn’t, and instead we got The Cloud, which feels like decentralization but is in fact massive centralization (organizational, rather than geographical).

Some of us think people should be hosting stuff from home, accessible from their mobile devices. But the first and to me one of the biggest hurdles is managing storage. And that requires a storage appliance that is simpler than using a laptop, not requiring the skills of an IT professional.

Drobo tried to make a storage appliance, but once you got to the fine print it had the same set of problems that ZFS still does.

All professional storage solutions are built on an assumption of symmetry of hardware. I have n identical (except not the same batch?) drives which I will smear files out across.

Consumers will never have drive symmetry. That’s a huge expenditure that few can justify, or much afford. My Synology didn’t like most of my old drives so by the time I had a working array I’d spent practically a laptop on it. For a weirdly shaped computer I couldn’t actually use directly. I’m a developer, I can afford it. None of my friends can. Mom definitely can’t.

A consumer solution needs to assume drive asymmetry. That day it is first plugged in, it will contain a couple new drives, and every hard drive the consumer can scrounge up from junk drawers - save two: their current backup drive and an extra copy. Once the array (with one open slot) is built and verified, then one of the backups can go into the array for additional space and speed.

From then on, the owner will likely buy one or two new drives every year, at whatever price point they’re willing to pay, and swap out the smallest or slowest drive in the array. Meaning the array will always contain 2-3 different generation of hard drives. Never the same speed and never the same capacity. And they expect that if a rebuild fails, some of their data will still be retrievable. Without a professional data recovery company.

which rules out all RAID levels except 0, which is nuts. An algorithm that can handle this scenario is consistent hashing. Weighted consistent hashing can handle disparate resources, by assigning more buckets to faster or larger machines. And it can grow and shrink (in a drive array, the two are sequential or simultaneous).

Small and old businesses begin to resemble consumer purchasing patterns. They can’t afford a shiny new array all at once. It’s scrounging and piecemeal. So this isn’t strictly about chasing consumers.

I thought ZFS was on a similar path, but the delays in sprouting these features make me wonder.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#37
post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The only entity to start a litigation cycle is Oracle, and they've either been uninterested or know they can't win. Canonical is the only entity they have any chance of going after; Canonical's lawyers already decided there was no license conflict. Linus Torvalds doesn't feel like being the guinea pig by risking ZFS in the mainline kernel. A totally reasonable position while the CDDL+GPL resolution is still ultimatel…

Not to mention, bcachefs is making progress towards mainline.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#38
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

yeah imagine a world where you could use time machine to backup 500gb parallels volumes where only the diff was stored between snapshots rather than needing to back up the whole 500gb volume every single time.

Right, that would be nice wouldn't it? As a workaround, you can create a sparsevolume to store your parallels volume. Sparsevolumes are stores in bands, and only bands that change get backed up. It might be slightly more efficient.

wow that sounds like an interesting solution!

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#40
post #36

I’m frustrated because this feature was mentioned by Schwartz when it was still in beta. I thought a new era of home computing was about to start. It didn’t, and instead we got The Cloud, which feels like decentralization but is in fact massive centralization (organizational, rather than geographical). Some of us think people should be hosting stuff from home, accessible from their mobile devices. But the first and t…

I completely agree. To build my array I had to buy several drives at the same time. To expand I had to buy a new drive, move the data onto the array, and then I’m left with the extra drive I had too buy to temporarily store the data because I can’t add it to the array.

I would love to have more options for expandable redundancy.

Post reply on HN