OpenZFS 2.1.7 Released With Linux 6.0 Support, Many Bug Fixes

[phoronix]

Phoronix: OpenZFS 2.1.7 Released With Linux 6.0 Support, Many Bug Fixes

For those looking to enjoy the ZFS file-system on Linux and FreeBSD platforms, OpenZFS 2.1.7 is now available...

https://www.phoronix.com/news/OpenZFS-2.1.7

[tildearrow]

Among the possible OpenZFS 3.0 features talked about

Link does not work...

[darkbasic]

No reflink support planned for 3.0?

[Vorpal]

Open ZFS seems cool, but the fact that it is not mainline makes it impractical for me, as I use a rolling release distro (Arch). I have been on kernel 6.0 for a while already.

Thus I am instead a btrfs user. Both file systems offer similar features (at least to my desktop use case, I'm not running RAID or building a NAS).

[nadir]

Open ZFS seems cool, but the fact that it is not mainline makes it impractical for me, as I use a rolling release distro (Arch). I have been on kernel 6.0 for a while already.

Thus I am instead a btrfs user. Both file systems offer similar features (at least to my desktop use case, I'm not running RAID or building a NAS).

I think for desktop use there is really no contest. I also use it for my server, because reflink support is hugely convenient for file management, but if I could afford a larger raid setup I might look into ZFS.

Still might end up with btrfs because I prefer Tumbleweed for my (non critical) use case. Current kernels and great btrfs integration are huge.

[ryao]

No reflink support planned for 3.0?

It is close to being merged to master.

[ryao]

Open ZFS seems cool, but the fact that it is not mainline makes it impractical for me, as I use a rolling release distro (Arch). I have been on kernel 6.0 for a while already.

Thus I am instead a btrfs user. Both file systems offer similar features (at least to my desktop use case, I'm not running RAID or building a NAS).

2.1.6 had unofficial support for 6.0. 2.1.7 has unofficial support for 6.1. Tony is being conservative when promising support in case we missed anything, but you could have run 2.1.6 on 6.0.

[ALRBP]

I think for desktop use there is really no contest. I also use it for my server, because reflink support is hugely convenient for file management, but if I could afford a larger raid setup I might look into ZFS.

Still might end up with btrfs because I prefer Tumbleweed for my (non critical) use case. Current kernels and great btrfs integration are huge.

For a server, I prefer stability: mdadm RAID+XFS with a Debian.

[skeevy420]

The Best Is Even Better.

The fact that it isn't mainline is rather moot. I've been using ZoL for 8 years and there's a very, very simple solution -- Install an LTS kernel and either run it or keep it around as backup and call it a day. Problem solved.

Rolling People Problems

...and if you're posing at Phoronix and mention Arch I'll assume you can just build it from git master when the compat commits land. I've done it before because Michael just has to go and post benchmarks showing newer software having better performance with the games I play. The nerve of that guy.

[roviq]

2.1.6 had unofficial support for 6.0. 2.1.7 has unofficial support for 6.1. Tony is being conservative when promising support in case we missed anything, but you could have run 2.1.6 on 6.0.

Came to post the same, I use ZFS and Arch on a budget NAS, and have been using the ZFS package maintained by Arch volunteers in an external repository, works nice, but there is always a slight delay on rolling updates. Still, for a more serious NAS (mine is a backup of backups) I would use an LTS Linux kernel and probably another distro instead of Arch or even FreeBSD. I'm actually patiently waiting for RAIDZ expansion to move to FreeBSD and keep growing that array through the years. I already did a replacement of a healthy disk (8TB partitioned with only 4TB usable) with another (4TB), so that all drives are 4TB, and it went out smoothly. I'm just testing the waters and doing experiments with ZFS.

In my desktop I use btrfs for my NVMe (/ , root) and a RAID of 4xSSDs (/home), and laptop with its NVMe in a dm-crypt volume. My btrfs experiments were like a decade ago with a similar setup but with my last IDE/PATA drives, as I deemed it stable for my usage, I replaced all ext4 in my systems for it. Super happy and much more easy to manage (less tunables), and able to convert data and metadata RAID types on the fly if possible, I miss native cryptography in btrfs though.

Overall, very happy with both ZFS and btrfs.