Linus Torvalds Doesn't Recommend Using ZFS On Linux

[polarathene]

Uh, 4.14 about. https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/Gotchas

I don't remember specifics, but pretty much since 4.19 iirc, all major issues were resolved(regarding BTRFS behaving badly, at least ones I was aware about). Only way you'd be likely to experience data loss these days is from using features that aren't deemed stable in their wiki/docs, such as RAID 5/6 or running into an unfortunate bug(likely from some niche setup) which again should be rare these days.

Other users run into problems from using the filesystem like any other without any consideration to how it works differently such as workloads where disabling COW(and all it's benefits) is advised on such data otherwise you can have a bad time as a result. Data isn't eaten/lost though in those situations, but an unhappy user might scream that BTRFS is buggy/unstable instead of admit they used it wrong.

[k1e0x]

Ok.. so what you're saying is that Oracle still has some copyright, which as Linus expressed concern for given Oracle's history, could lead to legal action? Would you be willing to take all financial liability and any repercussions if Oracle were to pursue legal action? You probably wouldn't, nor does Linus want to risk that on himself. Unless you're a lawyer and happen to know for sure that it's legally a non-issue to be concerned about.



Well... ZFS wouldn't count as that either as it's not been a linux file system for that long has it? Definitely not an official one. Features aside, you've got XFS, which at some point may be able to compete in that feature space too. I'm not against it personally, but I can understand why it's not being accepted for mainline inclusion in any form.



Really...Windows and macOS have out of the box support for it? It's not like BTRFS where you need to use a third-party project to make the filesystem support available?

For many, some of that OS support would have no value to them for selecting a filesystem, it could even be considered a detriment considering how much more complicated ZFS compared to an implementation for FAT32.

Just look at UDF and it's wide support across OS, but how poor that is(it's not really reliable to use cross-OS), BTRFS support on Windows isn't official via the BTRFS devs, it's someone elses implementation and isn't entirely reliable/compatible with sharing between Windows and Linux systems, known cases of corruption due to differences. Similar can be said about other filesystems with support on other OS.

If ZFS is unlike those, and has better support across OS that it's practically portable without problems, great!

Joliet, HPFS, NTFS all have wide OS support if you just want a filesystem for that claim.

I believe the CDDL and GPL are compatible so I have no issues mixing them. (others believe this too.)

On macOS you double click a dmg file and you have ZFS. It's as easy as installing Chrome. It's well supported and feature complete with the latest versions. When you import a pool on macOS it shows up in /Volumes and appears on the desktop, just like everything else. Even DiskUtility is aware of it. Mac's can even boot off ZFS. Window's support is alpha quality but it can read/write. ZFS reliability itself is said to be ok on Windows but Windows might blue screen. It has improved tho. Windows mounts it as a letter drive D: etc.

[pal666]

I believe the CDDL and GPL are compatible so I have no issues mixing them. (others believe this too.)

many people believe in ghosts

[pal666]

I can't wait until it has feature parity in 15 years! #excited

for it to have feature parity in 15 years, world has to stop for 15 years and wait

[polarathene]

I believe the CDDL and GPL are compatible so I have no issues mixing them. (others believe this too.)

Yeaaahh.. belief is a nice thing and for you as an individual, go nuts. But when it's no longer a personal decision, but one which can raise a brow, belief isn't going to protect you from legal action. Canonical takes the risk and can afford to with their belief that it's safe to do.

On macOS you double click a dmg file and you have ZFS. It's as easy as installing Chrome. It's well supported and feature complete with the latest versions. When you import a pool on macOS it shows up in /Volumes and appears on the desktop, just like everything else. Even DiskUtility is aware of it. Mac's can even boot off ZFS. Window's support is alpha quality but it can read/write. ZFS reliability itself is said to be ok on Windows but Windows might blue screen. It has improved tho. Windows mounts it as a letter drive D: etc.

Right... so not officially supported and various reliability across OS. Sounds like same issue other third-party filesystem support has. Regarding Windows, blue screening is one thing if you just use ZFS on Windows, but like the BTRFS driver for Windows, I'd be even more cautious about sharing the same volume with another OS using ZFS.

That's good though, hope it continues to improve. Generally though, if I can't hand an external over to a friend for them to use it on their system without having to install a third-party filesystem driver, it's rarely going to matter to me personally.

I'd really like to see that space improve, even for when just dealing with Linux, it'd be nice to have a portable filesystem that isn't strict with user/group/octal permissions but still has all the other perks linux filesystems have that exFAT/NTFS don't. For now, I guess there is NFS/Samba to share data over a network instead of USB to my local systems while using my preferred filesystems.

[k1e0x]

many people believe in ghosts

The spirit of the GPL and CDDL are the same. The license do the same thing. If you modify code on either, you must release your changes. The specifics of the license and the application of the license differ. They apply to different things. CDDL applies to files, GPL applies to works. The trouble is "works" is vaguely defined, where as files is very well defined. The question of compatibility has come up many time and due to the fact that the spirit and functions of these license are almost identical and the differences apply to specifics most lawyers agree they would be compatible. Pretty much only the FSF/GNU disagree. I really hope Oracle does sue over this because they will lose and we can put this to bed.

Also the GNU has issued exceptions to much more restrictive licenses than the CDDL. They are applying their exceptions unfairly to ZFS.

[pal666]

I use macOS, FreeBSD and Linux.

that's self-inficted pain. use linux only and stop crying

I use removable drives from time to time to store data. (long term cold storage)
I'd like to access that disk from any of the OS's I use.
Those drives need to be encrypted.

What file system would you recommend for me? I use ZFS currently for this.

you don't need any modern filesystem for this usecase. even vfat on full disk encryption will work. only idiot will use zfs for this, zfs has no data safety on single disk (unlike btrfs). and btw any os can access linux fs reexported by samba from linux vm

[pal666]

The spirit of the GPL and CDDL are the same

wake me when you have written agreement from oracle lawyers

[k1e0x]

Yeaaahh.. belief is a nice thing and for you as an individual, go nuts. But when it's no longer a personal decision, but one which can raise a brow, belief isn't going to protect you from legal action. Canonical takes the risk and can afford to with their belief that it's safe to do.



Right... so not officially supported and various reliability across OS. Sounds like same issue other third-party filesystem support has. Regarding Windows, blue screening is one thing if you just use ZFS on Windows, but like the BTRFS driver for Windows, I'd be even more cautious about sharing the same volume with another OS using ZFS.

That's good though, hope it continues to improve. Generally though, if I can't hand an external over to a friend for them to use it on their system without having to install a third-party filesystem driver, it's rarely going to matter to me personally.

I'd really like to see that space improve, even for when just dealing with Linux, it'd be nice to have a portable filesystem that isn't strict with user/group/octal permissions but still has all the other perks linux filesystems have that exFAT/NTFS don't. For now, I guess there is NFS/Samba to share data over a network instead of USB to my local systems while using my preferred filesystems.

ZFS can do all of that. You can mask the permissions and file naming case if you want. It also checksums your data on that removable disk and ensures whatever you put on it is the same thing that comes off it.. not bad for unreliable media. Oh it can encrypt too.. in case you lose it. And that encryption is compatible across all OS's.

[k1e0x]

that's self-inficted pain. use linux only and stop crying

you don't need any modern filesystem for this usecase. even vfat on full disk encryption will work. only idiot will use zfs for this, zfs has no data safety on single disk (unlike btrfs). and btw any os can access linux fs reexported by samba from linux vm

Though so..

"You're doing it wrong!" Sure buddy... You could just say.. "Yeah.. that probably solves your problem in a very clean and concise way." .. but no.. lol