ZFS On Linux Runs Into A Snag With Linux 5.0

[pal666]

If BTRFS ever reaches feature parity with ZFS I'd likely switch.

like no ability to run from single drive? why do you need such weakness parity?

[pal666]

Linux Slashdot kiddies still bitter over Btrfs crashing and burning.

LOL
kid, try to look at zfs bugtracker
Such a clusterfuck.

[pal666]

this statement is pretty disrespectful to the people who contributed to ZFS *on Linux* since its fork from the original Sun/Oracle codebase.

why one would respect people pushing out of tree crap?
next step is respect to nvidia driver

I bet those people would gladly work without this license imbroglio that Sun has gotten them into.
But Sun is dead and we all know what Oracle is.

then those people should pull hands out of their asses and write linux filesystem which uses zfs on-disk format and implements zfs features, instead of shoving shit down your throat

A very sad state of affair, considering ZFS (on Linux) in the only *serious* (iow. production-grade, even if not advertised as such) open/free filesystem in its category.

only idiot can consider unsupported buggy crap *serious* and production-grade

[pal666]

in order to reap the benefits I really would need more than one drive - otherwise zfs/btrfs can report but not correct errors.

only zfs has such deficiency. btrfs can have multiple copies of data on one drive. and it has multiplie copies of metadata on one drive by default. btrfs is superior to zfs in any way possible

[aht0]

troll: bla bla bla

Above quote says all..

[pal666]

I ask though, what's the probability that ZoL devs simply did not notice depreciation 10 years a go.

it is probable, since they are not very smart in the first place
those functions are also x86-only. so your zfs is as much of "linux filesystem" as nvidia windows blob is "linux driver". you can use it on linux as long as you agree to limit yourself to knee-elbow position

[pal666]

Above quote says all..

there is a dominating linux kernel. and there is a bunch of trolls doing helpless bla bla bla on forums. not very smart and not very reality-aware trolls

[pal666]

just a quick shortlist...
LLNL has contributed to linux plenty, EDAC, lustre, ext4 are three examples.
Sun gave you NFS.
Oracle contributes quite a fair bit to linux, even if all they seem interested in is their UEK. They started btrfs.

no, btrfs was started by one guy before he went to work for oracle. iirc he was working for suse.
so what is stopping oracle from contributing zfs propely just as they "contributed" btrfs?

[pal666]

What someone who doesn't have to deal with real users and real world workloads might say. For at least a couple of my projects, ZFS is by far the best solution

this means you've made mistake during judgement. in any case, you didn't get zfs from upstream, so target your complaints to party from which you get it, not to some unrelated party. or ask yourself to smarter select your vendors next time

[pal666]

ZFS cultists -- you mean IT professionals who work with real users / real workloads?

no, that would be me and i see no use for zfs