Originally posted by itoffshore
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
ZFS On Linux Runs Into A Snag With Linux 5.0
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by k1e0x View Post
Speculation. The creators of ZFS are human beings like Matt Ahrens who clearly does want it to run on Linux.. but.. if Linux kernel dev's don't want it.. I'm sure FreeBSD will have no problem stealing Linux's market share with it.
On top of that (and here's a major benefit), ZFS is a first-class citizen. ZoL will probably always have to chase Linus and his band of zombies around as they make willy nilly changes to the kernel API, and exported symbols. ZFS on FreeBSD will always be there.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View PostOnly using certain ZFS functionality makes it memory hungry. Generally whine about ZFS ram requirements is just FUD. For dead simple large file storage ram requirements are minuscule, you can get by using 768Mb. Seriously.
Originally posted by pgoetz View PostIf HBA, yes, you can use md, but this is inadequate for enterprise or even work group scale issues where data integrity is absolutely critical. mdadm will happily report that a RAID 5/6 is "healthy" when even a short smartctl test indicates disk errors. Been there, done that, and was barely able to recover the data from the RAID before replacing the (RAID-certified) disks that had developed unreadable sectors.
Than you can safely use a md RAID6 layer above (which still gives you redundancy while you replace a dead drive)
Ideally a checksuming file system yet above with also weekly or monthls tests. (BTRFS, for the anti-ZFS trolling factor :-D )
At workgroup scale, that is enough.
Originally posted by pal666 View Postwell, linux is the os for which most apps are developed (lookup android)
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostLike the BSD kernel that Sony uses with their Playstation products? Sony is only the #1 in the world when it comes to game consoles and they use a non-gpl open source kernel.
But still, to get network access all of them are going to be plugged into a router that runs Linux+Busybox
(not to speak that if the play station is plugged into a recent TV, the "smart" functionnality is most likely to be provided by a Linux kernel too)
So even in a world composed exclusively of Sony PS4s and Apple Macs, they still would be outnumbered by the pieces of hardware running Linux.
Originally posted by aht0 View PostServer space, excepting web servers (intranet), is dominated by Windows servers (~60%+ - I am extrapolating it from analytical data applying to Netherlands, which is your average free democratic country, "as good as any other"),
Cloud is mostly linux too (Except for a few non conformist running BSD VMs out of spite, and a couple of instance on Azure).
So if you count on a per-machine (rather than per-business) basis, non-Linux servers are basically a joke.
A bad joke.
Originally posted by aht0 View Postsmart phone business dominated by Android.. will see if Google's Fuchsia would eat it out of the market or not in the future..
With all its warchest, Microsoft wasn't that much successful at making them provide Windows Mobile powered hardware.
Originally posted by pgoetz View Postand are using this in a professional situation? I'd be happy to switch to Btrfs, but can't find any storage admin willing to endorse such a thing. Everyone (but you) views Btrfs as too unstable for serious production use
BTRFS is stable, RAID56 is about the only optional feature that isn't yet. As long as you don't rely on it (use RAD0, 1, dup, etc. or stack it above md) you're safe to go.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostBtrfs also got very decent tesing coverage when Facebook deployed it on their servers. Sure, not all features, just subset of these. I strongly doubt ZoL gets anyhow comparable testing coverage at all.
Originally posted by itoffshore View Postis better suited to running vm images than BTRFS.
Comment
-
Originally posted by aht0 View Post(1)First of all, get yourself decent laptop
(2) Ehm, you really-really think ZFS is limited here? zfs set copies=2 dataset OR use 2 mirrored ZFS partitions on a single drive OR combine the two. Or increase the number of copies. OR do everything mentioned and have absurd amount of copies.
BTRfs is actually more vulnerable of the two, because it's using crc32c hash trees and makes AFAIK only 2 copies of metadata.
ZFS uses Merkle hash trees and spreads it's metadata around. When you go fully paranoiac you can configure it to be resistant to hundreds of bad sectors. Your drive would probably die long before you get to worry about it, and when your drive suddenly tucks it's tail under it's head and says "good night", no file system can help you.
Anyway, bullshit again. I've used ZFS on Asus eeePC netbook, turning off fancy features and I am using ZFS on 2-drive mirror in my current Dell laptop.
And in my i7 gaming PC. And it does not have issues of space congestion or fragmentation.
I got a laugh looking at https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index....trfs_stable.3FLast edited by SystemCrasher; 17 January 2019, 06:55 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by DrYak View PostActually, ZFS *is* deployed on some Linux HPCs I know of.
I do think billion of facebooks users still gives better overall testing coverage vs what few HPC installations could ever afford.
As for android and java... hum, well, gamedevs aren't big fans of java for some reason. So there is NDK. Though it odd kind of Linux, sure.Last edited by SystemCrasher; 17 January 2019, 07:01 AM.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by GrayShade View Post
Have you ever tried to use ZFS?
There is also certain chance btrfs just mapped better on my ways of thinking and using computers. Somehow I do understand what this thing does and why and find it very logical most of time. I like this feeling.
Comment
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostLook, btrfs would use "dup" storage scheme for metadata (DUP stores metadata twice into same storage) BY DEFAULT if it spots filesystem consists of single drive. It can do same trick for data if one asks.
As for using a single disk, you can do that just fine when you set up your pool. You can start with one and add a mirror later if you feel like it.
What ZFS isn't great at is reconfiguring the pool after it's created. You can expand it, and you can add mirrors, but you can't e.g. switch from a mirror to a RAIDZ pool. You also can't remove drives from the pool, although I believe that's being worked on.
As for familiarity, the ZFS commands and terminology are a little strange, but -- having used md, I'd take ZFS over it any day. You'll also find a lot of FUD wrt. ZFS (like the oft-repeated advice of having 1 GB RAM / 1 TB of data).
I haven't tried btrfs, but AFAIK it doesn't have a stellar history of not eating your data (regardless of your personal experience with it). When I built my NAS I wanted it to do a good job at not losing data. In exchange, I paid the cost in learning about it, and using an out-of-tree module. I don't regret that trade-off at all.
- 1 like
Comment
-
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostCool, so I'm supposed to change laptop and pay quite some money for.... what exactly? Any measurable gains worth of all these tantrums, money spendings, OS reinstall, etc? For me laptop isn't center of the universe, just one of machines I use. I'm not okay when some tech throws such a bizarre demands on my head like that.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostYes, I do think failure to support busload of existing configurations, including those I do care of, is a limitation. Furthermore, such replies of ZFS sealots is what makes me not really fond of this thing. Look, I like btrfs because it proven to be convenient, does not throws unreasonable demands on my head, and takes existing real-world configurations into account. Somehow I think things should happen this way.Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostI do not seek for super-solutions to all humankind problems. While CRC32 surely not perfect and just 2 copies could be a problem if one needs ULTIMATE reliability, it surely not a case on laptop. At the end of day, keeping dozen of copies of metadata on laptop is dumb thing to do for many other reasons. Look, just some funny DC-DC failure inside - and all your dozen of copies of metadata are TOAST. As well as most of electronic components around. Same crap if you just spill water (coffee, tea, whatever). And these failure modes are more likely than getting unreadable metadata on exactly same offsets or getting through CRC32 - both imply I neglected storage failures for a while and if I've been ignorant that badly, I would hardly use any filesystem reasonably anyway. Especially ZFS throwing such a weird demands on my head and making inconvenient assumptions.
Except that it just does not works on single-drive configuration out of the box by easy means. And if it comes to complicated means - damn I would be easier just unrolling OS template and backups should drive fail that badly and need total replacement or something like this. And no, I'm not going to turn my laptop into data warehouse just to keep zfs happy.
ZFS single drive install on a laptop, easiest way:
You'd run the installer, reboot the machine upon completion, open the shell, get root and type
Code:zfs set copies=3 volume_name
Code:mount
Wanna check the results, type
Code:zfs get copies
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostI would agree, its bullshit to start your message with demand to buy "decent laptop" and then mumble something about EEE. Hilarious.
Originally posted by SystemCrasher View PostUhm yea, except one little problem: CoW inherently implies fragments. Furthermore, VM CoW disk vs FS CoW, DBs, just DLing some torrents and so on may not play well all together. And somehow I prefer technical solution over loud marketing BS. So btrfs got it. Ranging from deduplication/thin provisioning that does not hogs resources (e.g. reflinks) to defrag should mentioned assumption fail to work. Someting ZFS wasn't able to afford.
Sure, if you can't access your filesystem at all, like topic implies, it could be stable condition, but I think there is some catch.
Comment
Comment