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

ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 331 posts

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#111

Post by bolognafairy »

BSDobelix wrote: post #108
xattt wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZFS on OS X was killed because of Oracle licensing drama. I don’t expect anything better on Windows either.

>ZFS on OS X was killed because of Oracle licensing drama. Naa it was Jobs ego not the license: >>Only one person at Steve Jobs' company announces new products: Steve Jobs. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-ap...

It’s a cute story that plays into the same old assertions about Steve Jobs, but the conclusion is mostly baseless. There are many other, more credible, less conspiratorial, possible explanations.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#112

Post by ryao »

CoolCold wrote: post #105
ryao wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My thinkpad from college uses ZFS as its rootfs. The benefits are: * If the hard drive / SSD corrupted blocks, the corruption would be identified. * Ditto blocks allow for self healing. Usually, this only applies to metadata, but if you set copies=2, you can get this on data too. It is a poor man’s RAID. * ARC made the desktop environment very responsive since unlike the LRU cache, ARC resists cold cache effects from…

NTFS had compression since mot even sure when. For other stuff, let that nerdy CorpIT handle your system.

NTFS compression is slow and has a low compression ratio. ZFS has both zstd and lz4.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#113

Post by whataguy »

stephen_g wrote: post #110
GuB-42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, the situation with Linux is barely better. ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration, and Btrfs is 15 years in the making and still doesn't match ZFS in features and stability. Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS. In all fairness, there are few OS compon…

I’m interested to know what ‘full integration’ does look like, I use ZFS in Proxmox (Debian-based) and it’s really great and super solid, but I haven’t used ZFS in more vanilla Linux distros. Does Proxmox have things that regular Linux is missing out on, or are there shortcomings and things I just don’t realise about Proxmox?

The difference is that the ZFS kernel module is included by default with Proxmox, whereas with e.g. Debian, you would need to install it manually.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#114

Post by pimeys »

whataguy wrote: post #113
stephen_g wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m interested to know what ‘full integration’ does look like, I use ZFS in Proxmox (Debian-based) and it’s really great and super solid, but I haven’t used ZFS in more vanilla Linux distros. Does Proxmox have things that regular Linux is missing out on, or are there shortcomings and things I just don’t realise about Proxmox?

The difference is that the ZFS kernel module is included by default with Proxmox, whereas with e.g. Debian, you would need to install it manually.

And you can't follow the latest kernel before the ZFS module supports it.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#115

Post by Twey »

ekianjo wrote: post #81
wil421 wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many of us are using single disks on our laptops? I have a NAS and use all of the above but that doesn’t help people with single drive systems. Or help me understand why I would want it on my laptop.

It provides encryption by default without having to deal with LUKS. And no need to ever do fsck again.

Except that swap on OpenZFS still deadlocks 7 years later (https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/7734) so you're still going to need LUKS for your swap anyway.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#116

Post by BSDobelix »

GuB-42 wrote: post #73
poisonborz wrote: post #59

I just don't get it how the Windows world - by far the largest PC platform per userbase - still doesn't have any answer to ZFS. Microsoft had WinFS and then ReFS but it's on the backburner and while there is active development (Win11 ships some bits time to time) release is nowhere in sight. There are some lone warriors trying the giant task of creating a ZFS compatibility layer with some projects, but they are far f…

To be honest, the situation with Linux is barely better. ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration, and Btrfs is 15 years in the making and still doesn't match ZFS in features and stability. Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS. In all fairness, there are few OS compon…

>ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration

No one wants that, openZFS is much healthier without Linux and it's "Foundation/Politics".

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#117

Post by lousken »

azalemeth wrote: post #96
lousken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as far as stability goes, btrfs is used by meta, synology and many others, so I wouldn't say it's not stable, but some features are lacking

My understanding is that single-disk btrfs is good, but raid is decidedly dodgy; https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... states that: > The RAID56 feature provides striping and parity over several devices, same as the traditional RAID5/6. > There are some implementation and design deficiencies that make it unreliable for some corner cases and *the feature should not be used in production, only…

I was assuming OP wants to highlight filesystem use on a workstation/desktop, not for a file server/NAS. I had similar experience decade ago, but these days single drives just work, same with mirroring. For such setups btrfs should be stable. I've never seen a workstation with raid5/6 setup. Secondly, filesystems and volume managers are something else, even if e.g. btrfs and ZFS are essentialy both.

For a NAS setup I would still prefer ZFS with truenas scale (or proxmox if virtualization is needed), just because all these scenarios are supported as well. And as far as ZFS goes, encryption is still something I am not sure about especially since I want to use snapshots sending those as a backup to remote machine.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#118

Post by [deleted] »

bolognafairy wrote: post #111
BSDobelix wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ZFS on OS X was killed because of Oracle licensing drama. Naa it was Jobs ego not the license: >>Only one person at Steve Jobs' company announces new products: Steve Jobs. https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/06/zfs-the-other-new-ap...

It’s a cute story that plays into the same old assertions about Steve Jobs, but the conclusion is mostly baseless. There are many other, more credible, less conspiratorial, possible explanations.

[deleted]

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#119

Post by hooli_gan »

azalemeth wrote: post #96
lousken wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

as far as stability goes, btrfs is used by meta, synology and many others, so I wouldn't say it's not stable, but some features are lacking

My understanding is that single-disk btrfs is good, but raid is decidedly dodgy; https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid5... states that: > The RAID56 feature provides striping and parity over several devices, same as the traditional RAID5/6. > There are some implementation and design deficiencies that make it unreliable for some corner cases and *the feature should not be used in production, only…

RAID5/6 is not needed with btrfs. One should use RAID1, which supports striping the same data onto multiple drives in a redundant way.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#120

Post by throw0101a »

xattt wrote: post #79
GuB-42 wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be honest, the situation with Linux is barely better. ZFS has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration, and Btrfs is 15 years in the making and still doesn't match ZFS in features and stability. Most Linux distros still use ext4 by default, which is 19 years old, but ext4 is little more than a series of extensions on top of ext2, which is the same age as NTFS. In all fairness, there are few OS compon…

ZFS on OS X was killed because of Oracle licensing drama. I don’t expect anything better on Windows either.

> ZFS on OS X was killed because of Oracle licensing drama.

It was killed because Apple and Sun couldn't agree on a 'support contract'. From Jeff Bonwick, one of the co-creators ZFS:

>> Apple can currently just take the ZFS CDDL code and incorporate it (like they did with DTrace), but it may be that they wanted a "private license" from Sun (with appropriate technical support and indemnification), and the two entities couldn't come to mutually agreeable terms.

> I cannot disclose details, but that is the essence of it.

* https://archive.is/http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs...

Sun took DTrace, licensed via CDDL—just like ZFS—and put it into the kernel without issue. Of course a file system is much more central to an operating system, so they wanted much more of a CYA for that.

Post reply on HN