Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #21
    ZFS was created because Sun's volume manager and filesystem were crappy. Also, because Sun vehemently hated HW RAID controllers. Given that, it really, really made sense for Solaris and was "revolutionary" there (emphasis on "there"). On Linux, where a lot of those problems were solved a long time ago, it wasn't quite so revolutionary.

    We were using it at one time at work. But ended up gutting it. Mainly because it didn't make sense with our architecture. It did not bring any real benefit and caused us some pain. YMMV.

    Comment


    • #22
      The benchmarks I've seen do not make ZFS look all that great. And as far as I can tell, it has no real maintenance behind it either any more, so from a long-term stability standpoint, why would you ever want to use it in the first place?
      Hmmm, this doesn't shine a very positive light on Linus. I always thought he made sense, he knows what he's doing and what's going on but this clearly shows he has no clue.
      ​​​​​​​It won't matter in practice because of the license but Linux is missing out by being so hostile against ZFS.

      Comment


      • #23
        All I want is something that can detect bit rot on single drives, without causing some other kind of calamity. I keep everything backed up every 15 minutes, and if I could simply detect bit rot I'd never lose data.

        But there simply doesn't appear to be any supported and stable file system on Linux capable of performing that simple task. It's really a shame.

        Comment


        • #24
          Originally posted by aaahaaap View Post

          Hmmm, this doesn't shine a very positive light on Linus. I always thought he made sense, he knows what he's doing and what's going on but this clearly shows he has no clue.
          It won't matter in practice because of the license but Linux is missing out by being so hostile against ZFS.
          It's zfs that was hostile. Now it's nothing serious anymore. In the long term it's not an option like Linus said.

          Comment


          • #25
            Originally posted by aaahaaap View Post

            Hmmm, this doesn't shine a very positive light on Linus. I always thought he made sense, he knows what he's doing and what's going on but this clearly shows he has no clue.
            It won't matter in practice because of the license but Linux is missing out by being so hostile against ZFS.
            He was replying to someone who was upset at changes in his kernel daring to break zfs. The old Linus would have gone ballistic because that is an outrageous thing to say. He really has reigned in his temper based on this. zfs is not gpl2, you use it, it's on you, and that could not be clearer. And then he even goes on nicely to explain the obvious reasons why this is so.

            Comment


            • #26
              Originally posted by aaahaaap View Post

              It won't matter in practice because of the license but ZFS is missing out by being so hostile against Linux.
              There, fixed it for you...

              Comment


              • #27
                Linus clearly doesn't understand the problem.

                OracleZFS != OpenZFS in the same way MySQL != MariaDB
                Oracle does not own OpenZFS. More than 50% of OpenZFS is not copyright to Oracle. It's copyright to the OpenZFS developers.

                "Why would you ever want to use it in the first place?"

                Oh I don't know, maybe because I like my data and want to keep it? Show me the Linux file system with 20 years of development, 10 years of enterprise reliability and feature sets like sending a encrypted dataset to a remote untrusted server in incrementals without decrypting it and without spending an hour calculating changes.

                Where is that universal Linux file system I can use native on 5 different OS's? Linux, macOS, Windows, FreeBSD and Illumos? ZFS nearly has Fat32 level OS compatibility.

                I think it's fine out of tree really. Clearly Linux doesn't want nice things and FreeBSD is more than happy with the users that Like and want ZFS I'm sure. ZFS doesn't even compete with Linux filesystems.. it competes with NetApp. (You know that thing that probably stores all your Redhat VM's.. wouldn't it be great if that was open source running Linux... no... ok then... I guess you can keep paying them then..)
                Last edited by k1e0x; 01-09-2020, 08:30 PM.

                Comment


                • #28
                  Originally posted by Securitex View Post
                  OMG, you think that too?
                  9 + 1 is not 10? 2 is bigger than 10 to you?

                  Learn about semantic version numbers, they're not a whole number, it's not decimal and that should be rather obvious with a bit of research(unless you're trolling for a laugh). Or do you zero pad numbers in general?(eg 09)


                  Originally posted by rhavenn View Post
                  So, the real question is, why would you use BTRFS at all? ZFS is mature, stable and doesn't eat your data.
                  Originally posted by Neuro-Chef View Post
                  Btrfs is in the kernel but still under development and loses data.
                  Just curious, when was the last known case of BTRFS eating/losing data? What kernel was it? Or is this just periodic regurgitation of historical issues?


                  Originally posted by muncrief View Post
                  All I want is something that can detect bit rot on single drives, without causing some other kind of calamity.
                  You can get that with HDD and filesystems like BTRFS(and I assume ZFS) no? On an SSD it doesn't matter, or needs to be handled specially since having extra copies(of metadata blocks I think to detect bitrot), as SSDs can de-dupe internally such that if that data goes bad, then both "copies" will also be bad and thus bitrot would not be detected. Can't recall if it was detection or repair. Something like that.

                  Comment


                  • #29
                    Originally posted by polarathene View Post

                    Just curious, when was the last known case of BTRFS eating/losing data? What kernel was it? Or is this just periodic regurgitation of historical issues?

                    You can get that with HDD and filesystems like BTRFS(and I assume ZFS) no? On an SSD it doesn't matter, or needs to be handled specially since having extra copies(of metadata blocks I think to detect bitrot), as SSDs can de-dupe internally such that if that data goes bad, then both "copies" will also be bad and thus bitrot would not be detected. Can't recall if it was detection or repair. Something like that.
                    Uh, 4.14 about. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas

                    Although I've been running btrfs since about 2013 in RAID1. Lots of drive failures. 'btrfs restore' has gotten me back in short order every time. Haven't lost any data since switching from FreeNAS/ZFS5000 to UbuntuLTS+HWE/BTRFS. And I won't touch LVM/LVM2 with a 40 foot pole. Lost metadata and broken arrays too many times. No reasonable tools to fix LVM2 either; good luck using testdisk/imagerec against EXT4 in an LVM2 volume. XFS is great while it's running, but heartache to fix.

                    Comment


                    • #30
                      i wonder what is intersection of groups of braindead people using zfs and and brandead people hating systemd

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X