Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Still Working On ZFS Install Support, But Not In Time For 19.04

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

  • #11
    I just can't get excited about ZFS, we have excellent file systems in the kernel and Canonical must always complicate your life. I struggle to understand them, but what they touch always fails miserably, so I don't worry.

    Comment


    • #12
      Originally posted by dreich View Post

      Because, as you correctly observed, the Nvidia blob ships as a module, not as a kernel built-in?
      Weird, just like the ZFS module..

      With ZFS on root the init and package system takes care of the updates just like your Nvidia module.. There is as far as my knowledge NO patch to put ZFS in the kernel at all. It's always a module on Linux and that does not violate GPL any more than any other module.. even closed sourced ones.

      Comment


      • #13
        I thought according to the CDDL Canonical just couldn't ship the binary and their circumvention is simply by building ZFS on the client machine at install time including user-interaction. AFAIK 100% legal.

        Honestly I would be more concerned about EEE here and whether or not Canonical is trying to use ZFS as a way to lock in users to their software stack.

        In 2019 as a BTRFS user of 4 years I see 0 allure of ZFS. It's obscure, hard to find support, not in Linux Mainline, etc... the last thing I want is my data on some FS owned by a mega corporation. That's almost as bad as having your data in the cloud floating around between hackers and corporations.

        Comment


        • #14
          Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
          I thought according to the CDDL Canonical just couldn't ship the binary and their circumvention is simply by building ZFS on the client machine at install time including user-interaction. AFAIK 100% legal.

          Honestly I would be more concerned about EEE here and whether or not Canonical is trying to use ZFS as a way to lock in users to their software stack.

          In 2019 as a BTRFS user of 4 years I see 0 allure of ZFS. It's obscure, hard to find support, not in Linux Mainline, etc... the last thing I want is my data on some FS owned by a mega corporation. That's almost as bad as having your data in the cloud floating around between hackers and corporations.
          Canonical includes the compiled ZFS module. It's not built on the client machine.

          ZFS is just as free as Btrfs. It's just the wording of the licenses that makes some people think it's incompatible with GPL. The wording of the licenses is different, but the spirit of the licenses is the same. And because of that, no one can make a case that any harm is being caused.

          Comment


          • #15
            I couldn't care less about the licensing fapfap you're doing here; particularly because chief legal experts have been reviewing the matter for _years_ and concluded it's a non-issue, but I'm sure some random phoronix dudes know better.

            What I do care about is, ZFS on single disk setups is stupid. As simple as that. And therefore, ZFS on the majority of desktop installs is stupid.

            Technically you can do deduplication and compression.

            But there is no protection from corruption since there is no redundancy. So any error can be detected, but cannot be corrected. This sounds like an acceptable compromise, but its actually not. The reason its not is that ZFS' metadata cannot be allowed to be corrupted. If it is it is likely the zpool will be impossible to mount (and will probably crash the system once the corruption is found). So a couple of bad sectors in the right place will mean that all data on the zpool will be lost. Not some, all. Also there's no ZFS recovery tools, so you cannot recover any data on the drives. You cannot use the standard recovery tools that are designed for NTFS, FAT32, etc either. They don't work correctly.

            So what does all of this mean? It means that you run the risk of everything being just fine, and then suddenly (and without warning) all of the data is irretrievably lost.
            Source:

            https://www.ixsystems.com/community/...5/#post-216140

            Comment


            • #16
              Originally posted by ElectricPrism View Post
              the last thing I want is my data on some FS owned by a mega corporation.
              I agree, good thing we have a true open source enterprise filesystem like ZFS.
              https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs

              OpenZFS is a fork or Oracle ZFS much like Mariadb is a fork of Oracle Mysql.

              The CDDL is almost exactaly the same as the MPL.
              CDDL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/common...1.0)-explained
              MPL: https://tldrlegal.com/license/mozill...nse-2.0-(mpl-2)
              (If you hate ZFS for it's license please uninstall Firefox and Libreoffice and be consistent)

              And for comparison they are more "free" (as in permissive) than the holy GPL itself. https://tldrlegal.com/license/gnu-ge...ense-v3-(gpl-3)
              (Unless you define "freedom" as having more "rules you must follow by law")


              Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
              I couldn't care less about the licensing fapfap you're doing here; particularly because chief legal experts have been reviewing the matter for _years_ and concluded it's a non-issue, but I'm sure some random phoronix dudes know better.

              What I do care about is, ZFS on single disk setups is stupid. As simple as that. And therefore, ZFS on the majority of desktop installs is stupid.



              Source:

              https://www.ixsystems.com/community/...5/#post-216140
              Aside from some of it's features.. It's really good to know when your data is actually bad. ZFS won't return bad data so you'll know you need to restore files from backup at least. With that regard I'd use ZFS for a thumb drive. (Go dig through your old MP3's or Photos.. I'm sure you'll find corrupt files you never knew about.)

              Being that it's fairly cross platform.. with Linux, Mac OSX, BSD and Windows (soon tm) support. And it has the handy promise that what you're reading off that untrustworthy medium is actually the same thing you wrote to it.. yeah.. not too bad on a single disk even a usb stick.
              Last edited by k1e0x; 04-09-2019, 07:38 PM.

              Comment


              • #17
                I just wish rather than competition/fragmentation (stratis vs btrfs vs zfs) we would have a common goal/agenda to make the year of the Linux desktop great again

                Comment


                • #18
                  Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post
                  Well, I've said this before. This calls for boycott of Canonical, as they're violating GPL. ZFS can cure cancer for all I care, people working on this tumor of a port should be sent cease and desist letters.
                  Are you really asserting that people dieing (from cancer) is less important than your fanatic interpretation of the GPL ?

                  A lot of people doing important work rely on ZFS On Linux every day including climate change researchers and, yes, cancer research. If Canonical is making that easier, then good on them.

                  No other available filesystem is comparable in terms of data integrity and reliability.

                  We don't need zealots like yourself. Get over yourself.

                  Comment


                  • #19
                    Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
                    I couldn't care less about the licensing fapfap you're doing here; particularly because chief legal experts have been reviewing the matter for _years_ and concluded it's a non-issue, but I'm sure some random phoronix dudes know better.

                    What I do care about is, ZFS on single disk setups is stupid. As simple as that. And therefore, ZFS on the majority of desktop installs is stupid.



                    Source:

                    https://www.ixsystems.com/community/...5/#post-216140
                    If you ever have to resort to recovery tools retrieve your data, then you're doing it wrong. If your data has any value, then you always want to keep a good backup of it. Recovery tools are likely to get you partial or corrupted data with any filesystem that has them. And recovery becomes even more difficult if the filesystem is using features like compression and deduplication. What if the partition is encrypted? You better hope that the volume header never becomes corrupted, otherwise there will be no recovery of anything.

                    Though with that said, I suspect Canonical is intending this more for server installs where there are likely to be mirrored drives. It wouldn't surprise me if they don't even make it an option on desktop installs.

                    Comment


                    • #20
                      Originally posted by anarki2 View Post
                      What I do care about is, ZFS on single disk setups is stupid. As simple as that. And therefore, ZFS on the majority of desktop installs is stupid.
                      Source:
                      https://www.ixsystems.com/community/...5/#post-216140
                      Create single-drive ZFS mirror, there's no prohibition for using partitions, you know. Problem solved.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X