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

131–140 of 331 posts

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#131

Post by xattt »

ryao wrote: post #86
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.

There is a third party port here: https://openzfsonosx.org/wiki/Main_Page It was actually the NetApp lawsuit that caused problems for Apple’s adoption of ZFS. Apple wanted indemnification from Sun because of the lawsuit, Sun’s CEO did not sign the agreement before Oracle’s acquisition of Sun happened and Oracle had no interest in granting that, so the official Apple port was cancelled. I heard this second hand years…

That’s a shame re: NetApp/ZFS.

While third-party ports are great, they lack deep integration that first-party support would have brought (non-kludgy Time Machine which is technically fixed with APFS).

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#132

Post by BSDobelix »

koverstreet wrote: post #94
mustache_kimono wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Technically speaking, bcachefs has been merged into the Linux Kernel - that makes your initial assertion wrong. bcachefs doesn't implement its erasure coding/RAID yet? Doesn't implement send/receive. Doesn't implement scrub/fsck. See: https://bcachefs.org/Roadmap , https://bcachefs.org/Wishlist/ btrfs is still more of a legit competitor to ZFS these days and it isn't close to touching ZFS where it matters. If the p…

Erasure coding is almost done; all that's missing is some of the device evacuate and reconstruct paths, and people have been testing it and giving positive feedback (especially w.r.t. performance). It most definitely does have fsck and has since the beginning, and it's a much more robust and dependable fsck than btrfs's. Scrub isn't quite done - I actually was going to have it ready for this upcoming merge window exc…

>except for a nasty bout of salmonella

Did the Linux Foundation send you some "free" sushi? ;)

However keep the good work rolling, super happy about a good, usable and modern Filesystem native to Linux.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#133

Post by lousken »

_joel wrote: post #130
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

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.

I am assuming almost everybody at some point experienced data loss because they pulled out a flash drive too early. Is it safe to assume that we stopped using flash drives because of it?

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#134

Post by mshroyer »

endorphine wrote: post #25

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

I use it on a NAS for:

- Confidence in my long-term storage of some data I care about, as zpool scrub protects against bit rot

- Cheap snapshots that provide both easy checkpoints for work saved to my network share, and resilience against ransomware attacks against my other computers' backups to my NAS

- Easy and efficient (zfs send) replication to external hard drives for storage pool backup

- Built-in and ergonomic encryption

And it's really pretty easy to use. I started with FreeNAS (now TrueNAS), but eventually switched to just running FreeBSD + ZFS + Samba on my file server because it's not that complicated.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#135

Post by Jnr »

nabla9 wrote: post #124
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…

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

From my point of view it is a real usability issue.

zfs modules are not in the official repos. You either have to compile it on each machine or use unofficial repos, which is not exactly ideal and can break things if those repos are not up to date. And I guess it also needs some additional steps for secureboot setup on some distros?

I really want to try zfs because btrfs has some issues with RAID5 and RAID6 (it is not recommended so I don't use it) but I am not sure I want to risk the overall system stability, I would not want to end up in a situation where my machines don't boot and I have to fix it manually.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#136

Post by _joel »

lousken wrote: post #133
_joel wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I am assuming almost everybody at some point experienced data loss because they pulled out a flash drive too early. Is it safe to assume that we stopped using flash drives because of it?

I'm not sure we have stopped using flash, judging by the pile of USB sticks on my desk :) In relation to the fs analogy if you used a flash drive that you know corrupted your data, you'd throw it away for one you know works.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#137

Post by crest »

nabla9 wrote: post #124
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…

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

The main hurdle is hostile Linux kernel developers who aren't held accountable intentionally breaking ZFS for their own petty ideological reasons e.g. removing the in-kernel FPU/SIMD register save/restore API and replacing it with a "new" API to do the the same.

What's "new" about the "new" API? Its symbols are GPL2 only to deny it's use to non-GPL2 modules (like ZFS). Guess that's an easy way to make sure that BTRFS is faster than ZFS or set yourself up as the (to be) injured party.

Of course a reimplementation of the old API in terms of the new is an evil "GPL condom" violating the kernel license right? Why can't you see ZFS's CDDL2 license is the real problem here for being the wrong flavour of copyleft license. Way to claim the moral high ground you short-sighted, bigoted pricks. sigh

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#138

Post by oarsinsync »

blibble wrote: post #122
pimeys wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

for Debian that's not exactly a problem

Unless you’re using Debian backports, and they backport a new kernel a week before the zfs backport package update happens.

Happened to me more than once. I ended up manually changing the kernel version limitations the second time just to get me back online, but I don’t recall if that ended up hurting me in the long run or not.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#139

Post by bhaney »

BSDobelix wrote: post #116
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 has license issues with Linux, preventing full integration No one wants that, openZFS is much healthier without Linux and it's "Foundation/Politics".

> No one wants that

I want that

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#140

Post by mrb »

jeroenhd wrote: post #84
poisonborz wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Way better data security, resilience against file rotting. This goes for both HDDs or SSDs. Copy-on-write, snapshots, end to end integrity. Also easier to extend the storage for safety/drive failure (and SSDs corrupt in a more sneaky way) with pools.

The data security and rot resilience only goes for systems with ECC memory. Correct data with a faulty checksum will be treated the same as incorrect data with a correct checksum. Windows has its own extended filesystem through Storage Spaces, with many ZFS features added as lesser used Storage Spaces options, especially when combined with ReFS.

"data security and rot resilience only goes for systems with ECC memory."

No. Bad HDDs/SSDs or bad SATA cables/ports cause a lot more data corruption than bad RAM. And ZFS will correct these cases even without ECC memory. It's a myth that the data healing properties of ZFS are useless without ECC memory.

Post reply on HN