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

31–40 of 151 posts

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#31

Post by Nican »

throw0101a wrote: post #10

Sadly dRAID (parity Declustered RAIDz) just missed the cut-off for 2.0, but it looks like it will be in 2.1: * https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/dRAI... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXOtEF6Fh0

dRAID looks really fascinating, but presentation is pretty abstract. Would it allow to add/remove drives from a pool, and allow ZFS to rebalance itself?

Would be great for home use, where I have a lot of drives that I collected over the years that are not the same size.

EDIT: The more I read into this, it still seems assume that all drives must be of the same size.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#32

Post by brnt »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #21
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.

Is there a guide for this? Sounds interesting!

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#34

Post by nix23 »

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?

https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Manpage/btrfs

>what does that mean?

Not functional but logical (for me)

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#35

Post by 1over137 »

mlex wrote: post #25

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.

FreeNAS 12 (now named TrueNAS) is already using OpenZFS 2.0, or very nearly.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#36

Post by vetinari »

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?

Proxmox uses their own kernels, so they build the zfs modules as well. They are bundled in the pve-kernel package.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#38

Post by pantalaimon »

Nican wrote: post #31
throw0101a wrote: post #10

Sadly dRAID (parity Declustered RAIDz) just missed the cut-off for 2.0, but it looks like it will be in 2.1: * https://openzfs.github.io/openzfs-docs/Basic%20Concepts/dRAI... * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdXOtEF6Fh0

dRAID looks really fascinating, but presentation is pretty abstract. Would it allow to add/remove drives from a pool, and allow ZFS to rebalance itself? Would be great for home use, where I have a lot of drives that I collected over the years that are not the same size. EDIT: The more I read into this, it still seems assume that all drives must be of the same size.

You can already do that with btrfs.

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#39

Post by nix23 »

vetinari wrote: post #30
neolog wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Well zpool is for the pool which consist of filesystems/datasets or zfs's. So i have a clear distinction of the whole pool (pools or logical groups) or filesystems/datasets (zfs or logical volumes).

It has nothing todo with /usr/sbin/x

Re: OpenZFS 2.0

#40

Post by briskstorm »

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?

To mirror other comments, btrfs is pretty stable now and I run it on my server. The main problems now are with RAID5/6 profiles, the implementation has lots of issues still that can cause data loss[1]. Seems most of the core developers don't use those profiles so it hasn't been getting better. If you want to use RAID it would be safer to stick to RAID1/10[2]

[1] https://lore.kernel.org/linux-btrfs/20200627032414.GX10769@h...

[2] https://www.man7.org/linux/man-pages/man8/mkfs.btrfs.8.html#...

Post reply on HN