ZFS Boot Environments Are Helping To Improve The Resilience Of FreeBSD Upgrades

[phoronix]

Phoronix: ZFS Boot Environments Are Helping To Improve The Resilience Of FreeBSD Upgrades

Besides the ZFS file-system just being a heck of a lot better all-around than FreeBSD's traditional UFS, tooling around ZFS paired with its native snapshot capabilities is allowing for more resilient installations and upgrades of FreeBSD...

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ZFS-Boot-Environments-FreeBSD

[tildearrow]

Minor typo:

see these detailed slides by Allan Jude from FOSDEM 2019..

[vermaden]

I have written/talked several times already about ZFS Boot Environments - https://is.gd/BECTL - check the presentation here.

[danboid]

This isn't news Michael, ZFS boot environments have been around for almost a decade, in Solaris and FreeBSD but Linux ZFS on root users can use them too thanks to zedenv.

https://github.com/johnramsden/zedenv

https://github.com/johnramsden/zedenv-grub

The easiest way to use zedenv is by installing Arch using ALEZ

https://github.com/danboid/ALEZ

[hax0r]

freebsd is developed as complete operating system, user-installed apps are separate from "base" system and are in /usr/local/{bin, etc, ...}, there is no way an upgrade would break a system, meanwhile in GNU/Linux sometimes simple update results in unbootable systems or programs failing to launch due to unresolved .so bumps and unresolved shared libraries, there is way too much fragmentation, too many package mangers, too many meaningless distributions, pid_eins's systemd has further divided the userbase, many users are fleeing and seeking refuge in Gentoo with OpenRC. freebsd still has upper hand when it comes to raw tcp/ip performance, packet filtering, and enterprise level zfs file storage.

[-MacNuke-]

there is no way an upgrade would break a system

As a FreeBSD user myself... this is false. There are a ton of reasons why an upgraded FreeBSD can fail to boot. And I saw probably all of them myself.

[nils_]

freebsd is developed as complete operating system, user-installed apps are separate from "base" system and are in /usr/local/{bin, etc, ...}, there is no way an upgrade would break a system, meanwhile in GNU/Linux sometimes simple update results in unbootable systems or programs failing to launch due to unresolved .so bumps and unresolved shared libraries, there is way too much fragmentation, too many package mangers, too many meaningless distributions, pid_eins's systemd has further divided the userbase, many users are fleeing and seeking refuge in Gentoo with OpenRC. freebsd still has upper hand when it comes to raw tcp/ip performance, packet filtering, and enterprise level zfs file storage.

I hardly ever experience those problems you describe, I sometimes have issues with ZFS since I run a custom kernel and the DKMS mechanism seems flaky, but other than that most upgrades just work. I especially never had issues with shared libraries. The point about network performance is debatable, especially since Hardware support isn't as good in FreeBSD, I'm thinking of devices in the 40GBit/s and over range especially.

[Wojcian]

freebsd still has upper hand when it comes to raw tcp/ip performance, packet filtering, and enterprise level zfs file storage.

I'm sorry, but it seems every part of your comment is false. No thank you for spreading false informations.

https://medium.com/@matteocroce/linu...g-cbadcdb15ddd

[Dedobot]

"beadm" is pure joy in Solaris,have no patience to reach home and try it at BSD. I will be very glad if it works like in the sunos. Beadm or similar is a must for every OS pretending to be a "modern".
MS system restore is medieval tool compared to beadm

[Vistaus]

there is no way an upgrade would break a system, meanwhile in GNU/Linux sometimes simple update results in unbootable systems or programs failing to launch

Funny. Normally that's the main argument from Win and Mac users camp.