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

121–130 of 331 posts

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#121

Post by formerly_proven »

cm2187 wrote: post #13
mustache_kimono wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It is possible with windows storage space (remove drive from a pool) and mdadm/lvm (remove disk from a RAID array, remove volume from lvm), which to me are the two major alternatives. Don't know about unraid. Perhaps I am misunderstanding you, but you can offline and remove drives from a ZFS pool. Do you mean WSS and mdadm/lvm will allow an automatic live rebalance and then reconfigure the drive topology?

So for instance I have a ZFS pool with 3 HDD data vdevs, and 2 SSD special vdevs. I want to convert the two SSD vdevs into a single one (or possibly remove one of them). From what I read the only way to do that is to destroy the entire pool and recreate it (it's in a server in a datacentre, don't want to reupload that much data). In windows, you can set a disk for removal, and as long as the other disks have enough s…

My understanding is that ZFS does virtual physical translation in the vdev layer, i.e. all block references in ZFS contain a (vdev, vblock) tuple, and the vdev knows how to translate that virtual block offset into actual on-disk block offset(s).

This kinda implies that you can't actually remove data vdevs, because in practice you can't rewrite all references. You also can't do offline deduplication without rewriting references (i.e. actually touching the files in the filesystem). And that's why ZFS can't deduplicate snapshots after the fact.

On the other hand, reshaping a vdev is possible, because that "just" requires shuffling the vblock -> physical block associations inside the vdev.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#122

Post by blibble »

pimeys wrote: post #114
whataguy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

for Debian that's not exactly a problem

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#123

Post by BSDobelix »

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.

[flagged]

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#124

Post by nabla9 »

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…

License is not a real issue. It must be just distributed in separate module. No big hurdle.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#125

Post by _factor »

kawsper wrote: post #37
senectus1 wrote: post #24

Would love to use ZFS, but unfortunately Fedora just cant keep up with it...

Not sure if it helps you at all, but I have a simple Ruby script that I use to build kernels on Fedora with a specified ZFS version. https://github.com/kaspergrubbe/fedora-kernel-compilation/bl... It builds on top of the exploded fedora kernel tree, adds zfs and spits out a .rpm that you can install with rpm -ivh. It doesn't play well with dkms because it tries to interfere, so I disable it on my system.

I could never getting working on rpm-ostree distros.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#126

Post by PaulKeeble »

endorphine wrote: post #25

Can someone describe why they would use ZFS (or similar) for home usage?

I have a home built NAS that uses ZFS for the storage array and the checksumming has been really quite useful in detecting and correcting bit rot. In the past I used MDADM and EXT over the top and that worked but it didn't defend against bit rot. I have considered BTRFS since it would get me the same checksumming without the rest of ZFS but its not considered reliable for systems with parity yet (although now I think it likely is more than reliable enough now).

I do occasionally use snapshots and the compression feature is handy on quite a lot of my data set but I don't use the user and group limitations or remote send and receive etc. ZFS does a lot more than I need but it also works really well and I wouldn't move away from a checksumming filesystem now.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#127

Post by bayindirh »

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…

> How come that Windows still uses a 32 year old file system?

Simple. Because most of the burden is taken by the (enterprise) storage hardware hosting the FS. Snapshots, block level deduplication, object storage technologies, RAID/Resiliency, size changes, you name it.

Modern storage appliances are black magic, and you don't need much more features from NTFS. You either transparently access via NAS/SAN or store your NTFS volumes on capable disk boxes.

On the Linux world, at the higher end, there's Lustre and GPFS. ZFS is mostly for resilient, but not performance critical needs.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#128

Post by BSDobelix »

pimeys wrote: post #114
whataguy wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Try CachyOS https://cachyos.org/ , you can even swap from an existing Arch installation:

https://wiki-dev.cachyos.org/sk/cachyos_repositories/how_to_...

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#129

Post by bayindirh »

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…

> 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.

However, ext4 and XFS are much more simpler and performant than BTRFS & ZFS as root drives on personal systems and small servers.

I personally won't use either on a single disk system as root FS, regardless of how fast my storage subsystem is.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#130

Post by _joel »

lousken wrote: post #74
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…

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

I'm similar to some other people here, I guess once they've been bitten by data loss due to btrfs, it's difficult to advocate for it.
Post reply on HN