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

291–300 of 331 posts

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#291

Post by [deleted] »

unixhero wrote: post #287
zelcon wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tbh the idea of keeping backups defeats the purpose of using RAIDZ (especially RAIDZ3). I don’t want to buy an LTO drive, so if I backup, it’s either buying more HDDs or S3 Glacier ($$$). I like RAIDZ so I don’t have to buy so many drives. I guess it protects you if your house burns down, but how many people do offsite backups for their personal files? And dormant, unpowered HDDs die a lot faster than live, powered H…

Yes, seriously handling your data is expensive. I am talking about buying new hardrives.

[deleted]

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#292

Post by gf000 »

bayindirh wrote: post #289
ryao wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am generally happy with the write performance of ZFS. I have not noticed slow system updates on ZFS (although I run Gentoo, so slow is relative here). In what ways is the write performance bad? I am one of the OpenZFS contributors (although I am less active as late). If you bring some deficiency to my attention, there is a chance I might spend the time needed to improve upon it. By the way, ZFS limits the outstandi…

What I see with CoW filesystems is, when you force the FS to sync a lot (like apt does to keep immunity against power losses to a maximum), the write performance slouches visibly. This also means that when you're writing a lot of small files with a lot of processes and flood the FS with syncs, you get the same slouching, making everything slower in the process. This effect is better controlled in simpler filesystems,…

Hi! I am quite a beginner when it comes to file systems. Would this sync effect not be helped by direct IO in ZFS's case?

Also, given that you seem quite knowledgeable of the topic, what is your go-to backup solution?

I initially thought about storing `zfs send` files into backblaze (as backup at a different location), but without recv-ing these, I don't think the usual checksumming works properly. I can checksum the whole before and after updating, but I'm not convinced if this is the best solution.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#293

Post by Jnr »

harshreality wrote: post #186
Jnr wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 no…

Why are you considering raid5/6? Are you considering building a large storage array? If the data will fit comfortably (50-60% utilization) on one drive, all you need is raid1. Btrfs is fine for raid1 (raid1c3 for extra redundancy); it might have hidden bugs, but no filesystem is immune from those; zfs had a data loss bug (it was rare, but it happened) a year ago. Why use zfs for a boot partition? Unless you're using…

I am already using ext4 for /boot and / on nvme, and I am happy with that.

I want to use raid 5 for the large storage mount point that holds non-OS files. I want both space and redundancy. Currently I have several separate raid1 btrfs mounts since it is recommended against raid5.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#294

Post by BSDobelix »

ruthmarx wrote: post #221
BSDobelix wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The customer is not always right, however a good/modern Filesystem really would be something for Linux ;)

> The customer is not always right, An uninvited door-to-door salesman is rarely, if ever right.

HN is more like a Tupperware party. ;)

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#295

Post by somat »

happosai wrote: post #61

The annual reminder that if Oracle wanted to contribute positively to the Linux ecosystem, they would update the CDDL license ZFS uses to GPL compatible.

Honestly the cddl being incompatible with the gpl is one of the weirder statements to come out of the fsf. It comes up every time the cddl is mentioned but no one really knows why they are incompatible, it is basically "the fsf says they are incompatible" and when really pressed, they dithered until 2016 then came up with some hand waving that the incompatibility is some minutia as to what scope each license applies to.

The whole thing smells of some FSF agenda to me. if you ship a cddl file in your gpl project it is still a gpl licensed project and the cddl file is still a cddl licensed file.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#296

Post by pantalaimon »

mustache_kimono wrote: post #5
cm2187 wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I presume it is still not possible to remove a vdev.

Is this possible elsewhere (re: other filesystems)?

btrfs has supported online adding and removing of devices to the pool from the start

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#297

Post by qwertox »

BSDobelix wrote: post #207
tjoff wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

... VSS is used to create backups. Re-read parent.

Not good enough, you can make 10000 backups of bitrotten data, if you don't have check-sums on your block (zfs) or files (restic) nothing can help you. That's the same integrity as to copy stuff on your thump-drive.

The same applies to those filesystems on Linux which don't check for bit-rottenness, which will be the majority of installs.

Your average grandma would use ext4 when using Linux. Android phones don't do that as well and I don't know about iOS, but apparently APFS only does metadata checksumming.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#298

Post by BSDobelix »

qwertox wrote: post #297
BSDobelix wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not good enough, you can make 10000 backups of bitrotten data, if you don't have check-sums on your block (zfs) or files (restic) nothing can help you. That's the same integrity as to copy stuff on your thump-drive.

The same applies to those filesystems on Linux which don't check for bit-rottenness, which will be the majority of installs. Your average grandma would use ext4 when using Linux. Android phones don't do that as well and I don't know about iOS, but apparently APFS only does metadata checksumming.

>> if you don't have check-sums on your block (zfs) or files (restic)

....

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#299

Post by e12e »

lazide wrote: post #90
e12e wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cross platform native encryption with sane fs for removable media.

Who would that help? MacOS also defaults to a non-portable FS for likely similar reasons, if one was being cynical.

It would help users using USB sticks, external drives?

Couple it with encrypted zfs send/receive for cross platform secure backups.

Re: ZFS 2.3 released with ZFS raidz expansion

#300

Post by ruthmarx »

BSDobelix wrote: post #294
ruthmarx wrote: post #221

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The customer is not always right, An uninvited door-to-door salesman is rarely, if ever right.

HN is more like a Tupperware party. ;)

Well then you ought to go somewhere more appreciative of your pitches ;)
Post reply on HN