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

OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 177 posts

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#91

Post by wkat4242 »

eminence32 wrote: post #7

The 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...

I hope this corporate sponsorship won't go the way that wireguard went. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2021/03/buffer-overruns-lice...

What worries me the most is them doubling down on it after it was shown to be a mess and totally insecure. I imagine to protect the corporate image. But such corporate interests don't belong in FreeBSD. Just admit you hired the wrong guy (or the right guy at the wrong time) and take the hit. Because it wasn't even the company's fault really.

The lack of serious review on the freebsd side was also a big one but I find the 'strings attached' the biggest issue myself because it made mitigation of serious issues such a problem.

The large amount of corporate kernel work in Linux is why I went for FreeBSD and to see whatever little go so wrong was worrying.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#92

Post by toast0 »

ilyt wrote: post #78
tux3 wrote: 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/

So, why OpenZFS can't fix their license ?

OpenZFS is a fork of the Sun/Oracle release of ZFS. The OpenZFS maintainers cannot change the license without consent of the copyright owners, and Oracle is unlikely to consent. Oracle could potentially change the terms in a future release of CDDL, and that might work, too.

Similarly, Linux probably has too many contributors, some of which are no longer living, to come to an agreement on a fixed license either.

Although, license changes do happen; OpenSSL did one recently, but I think there are fewer contributors.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#93

Post by wkat4242 »

ilyt wrote: post #78
tux3 wrote: 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/

So, why OpenZFS can't fix their license ?

Because it uses code released by Sun under the CDDL. Oracle has since closed sourced the whole thing again so they're not going to change the license of this old code, they don't even want it out there but they can't take it back.

Doing a clean room rewrite would be a huge job.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#94

Post by wkat4242 »

Nextgrid wrote: post #27
chungy wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I wonder what Oracle would litigate over though? My understanding is that licenses are generally used by copyright holders to restrict what others can do with a work so the holder can profit off the work and/or keep a competitive advantage. Here I do not see this argument applying since the source is freely available to use and extend; the license explicitly allows someone to compile it and use it. In this case provi…

Playing legal chicken with Oracle is a really dumb thing to do because catching their customers in obscure license violations and then suing the hell out of them is their entire business model. They specialise in this stuff.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#96

Post by hinkley »

Tijdreiziger wrote: post #79
hinkley wrote: 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…

https://kb.synology.com/en-global/DSM/tutorial/What_is_Synol...

That creates multiple arrays from the same disks. That’s intimately no simpler than buying a string of 2 disk raid enclosures.

Do any of you people actually do UX or DX for a living? This is starting to worry me.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#97

Post by hinkley »

ilyt wrote: post #76
hinkley wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Raid 1 does not work with heterogenous disk arrays.

Eh, it can kinda work. If you have 1, 2,3,4TB drives you can make RAID10 out of first GB, then stitch 2TB RAID0 from second and third and RAID1 it with 2TB out of 4th drive. then raid1 out of remaining GB on 3rd and 4th. Then glue it together with LVM and hope for best.

There is what a man can do, and what he should do. Nobody normal is going to do any of this.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#98

Post by keeperofdakeys »

wkat4242 wrote: post #87
allanjude wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is not how this will work. The reason the parity ratio stays the same, is that all of the references to the data are by DVA (Data Virtual Address, effectively the LBA within the RAID-Z vdev). So the data will occupy the same amount of space and parity as it did before. All stripes in RAID-Z are dynamic, so if your stripe is 5 wide and your array is 6 wide, the 2nd stripe will start on the last disk and wrap arou…

Could you force a complete rewrite if you wanted to? That would be handy. Without copying all the data elsewhere of course. I don't have another 90TB of spare disks :P Edit: I suppose I could cover this with a shell script needing only the spare space of the largest file. Nice!

The easiest approach is to make a new subvolume, and move one file at a time. (Normal mv is copy + remove which doesn't quite work here, so you'd probably want something using find -type f and xargs with mv).

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#99

Post by keeperofdakeys »

edmundsauto wrote: post #74
deadbunny wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mirrored vdevs resilver a lot faster than zX vdevs. Much less chance of the remaining drive dying during a resilver if it takes hours rather than days.

Is the amount of data read/written the same? I'm not clear why wall time is the relevant metric, unless that's the critical driver of failure likelihood. I would have guessed it's not time but bytes.

A mirror resilver is a relatively linear and sequential rewrite, so its very fast. Raidz resilvers require lots of random reads and writes across all the drives, and requires waiting for all drives to read data before it can be written to the replaced drive - "herding cats" sounds appropriate here.

Re: OpenZFS – add disks to existing RAIDZ

#100

Post by ksec »

Terretta wrote: post #59
jedberg wrote: 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…

> 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. See QNAP HERO 5: https://www.qnap.com/static/landing/2021/quts-hero-5.0/en/in... NAS Options: https://www.qnap.com/en-us/product/?conditions=4-3 // This was about MacOS, and yes, that would be cool. But QNAP is remarkably MacOS-friendly, includi…

If you follow Qnap you may be aware of their security nightmare in recent years.

And HERO OS is only available on the Enterprise range of NAS, not even Prosumer class NAS.

Post reply on HN