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

OpenZFS 2.0

github.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 151 posts

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#21

Post by Ericson2314 »

anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

ZFS is no extra work with NixOS! You just declare the filesystem type like any other in the config and it takes care of kernel modules and what-not.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#22

Post by paulsmal »

sliken wrote: post #12
paulsmal wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know Ubuntu support ZFS since 20.04. Experimental, but quite stable for me. Just select file system during installation process.

Or say apt install zfs-utils, that's it, not even a reboot.

Oh yeah, right. Installation method if one needs ZFS on root.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#23

Post by paulsmal »

weitzj wrote: post #18
anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

The easiest way is using t Proxmox installer which has ZFS as a filesystem. Underneath it is a Debian 10 installation. Last time I tried you could not enable ZFS encryption. I don’t know what is the case with Openzfs 2.0 Do we have encryption,yet?

Ubuntu 20.10 has an option in installer to use ZFS encryption for root partition.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#24

Post by kbumsik »

anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

I personally use ZFS on Arch Linux. The DKMS package works almost out of the box and I haven't had any troubles. It takes a long time (but not too much) to compile though.

Or you can use the latest Ubuntu that is shipped with ZFS.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#25

Post by mlex »

Just built a FreeNAS system over the past couple weeks and finished doing burn-in tests of my hard drives, wonder if I should wait and see how to install OpenZFS 2.0.0 before I create my storage config.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#26

Post by neolog »

nix23 wrote: post #14
anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

>ZFS directly on my Linux desktop Use BTRFS trust me it's stable now...well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS. All my Server are FreeBSD but on the Laptop and on one Workstation i have openSUSE Tumbleweed since like 2 years and it works great.

> the commands are terrible

what does that mean?

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#27

Post by gpanders »

nix23 wrote: post #14
anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

>ZFS directly on my Linux desktop Use BTRFS trust me it's stable now...well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS. All my Server are FreeBSD but on the Laptop and on one Workstation i have openSUSE Tumbleweed since like 2 years and it works great.

> well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS

Really? I don’t think so, I find btrfs usage extremely straightforward and easy to grok. ZFS on the other hand has all that confusing lingo about vdevs, etc...

I get that this is subjective but I disagree.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#28

Post by Jnr »

anderspitman wrote: post #8

I'd love to get rid of my FreeNAS VM and run ZFS directly on my Linux desktop, but having to mess with the kernel has kept me from attempting it so far. Maybe I'm worrying about nothing. btrfs seems like the main alternative if you want native kernel support, but when I checked a couple years ago there seemed to be a lot of concerns about the stability. Is that still the case?

I'm using btrfs and my system still works. :)

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#29

Post by nix23 »

gpanders wrote: post #27
nix23 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ZFS directly on my Linux desktop Use BTRFS trust me it's stable now...well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS. All my Server are FreeBSD but on the Laptop and on one Workstation i have openSUSE Tumbleweed since like 2 years and it works great.

> well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS Really? I don’t think so, I find btrfs usage extremely straightforward and easy to grok. ZFS on the other hand has all that confusing lingo about vdevs, etc... I get that this is subjective but I disagree.

Hey everyone has a different taste, but vdevs, datasets, and pool are for me much more logical than lv's and lg's (pun was NOT intended).

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#30

Post by vetinari »

neolog wrote: post #26
nix23 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>ZFS directly on my Linux desktop Use BTRFS trust me it's stable now...well the commands are terrible compared to ZFS. All my Server are FreeBSD but on the Laptop and on one Workstation i have openSUSE Tumbleweed since like 2 years and it works great.

> the commands are terrible what does that mean?

For zfs specific features, there are 'zfs' and 'zpool' commands (well, binaries, and the first parameter is a command). For btrfs, there is 'btrfs'.

So I guess that the GP considers /usr/sbin/{zfs,zpool} more intuitive than /usr/sbin/btrfs.

Post reply on HN