Originally posted by cen1
View Post
OpenZFS 2.2.7 Released With Linux 6.12 Support, Many Fixes
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Guiorgy View Post
I'm running Ubuntu LTS with ZFS root and home, while not exactly Debian, should be close enough?
Normally I prefer to stick with LTS kernels but 6.11/6.12 are the kinds of kernels you don't want to downgrade from due to things like the SCX schedulers. Sometimes we get kernel releases that bring in such a nice fix or feature that they become the new baseline for what we consider to be a fully featured Linux kernel.
Anecdotally, KDE on Debian/Ubuntu is rather atrocious. Ubuntu in particular just focuses on GNOME and its dependencies so much so that other desktop environments can suffer. Debian, OTOH, can be very, very conservative regarding what gets updated and why.
Then there's another issue that only kernel geeks will run into: Nearly every person, group, etc that's into tweaking the Linux kernel for more performance sticks with mainline Linux. They almost never do tweaking on both LTS and Mainline. You really notice it when you DIY the patches yourself or keep up with a group like CachyOS or Frogging Family.
That's why as much as LTS can be a solution it can also be a problem.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostSome people need a newer user space than what Ubuntu LTS offers or, like me, they run KDE so they don't see Ubuntu (or LTS in general) as a viable option. That's why I run CachyOS.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by GruenSein View Post
This is exactly why I jumped ship. Having to exclude the kernel from updates for months was just annoying and this cycle is not the first one with a long delay. ZFS is nice but I'll stick to in-kernel FSs for now.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by cen1 View PostIf only I could just spin up Debian and have ZFS out of the box with full installer support without having to muck around with out of kernel modules, having to turn off secure boot or do self-signing.. this is my last pain point with ZFS.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View PostSome people need a newer user space than what Ubuntu LTS offers or, like me, they run KDE so they don't see Ubuntu (or LTS in general) as a viable option. That's why I run CachyOS. Very up to date user space and all their kernels have OpenZFS support since they work with upstream OpenZFS to supply up-to-date kernels with compat patches which is why I've been running 6.12 since it was released and I have an OpenZFS root.
But for kernel 6.9 for example many people thought that zfs 2.2.4 was good to go because it compiled without errors. kernel 6.9 was released on 12. May but relevant zfs commits where only released as late as July 2024. Nevertheless projects like archzfs negligently provided an out of the box zfs 2.2.4 package for kernel 6.9 starting in May.
zfs 2.2.4 is not compatible with kernel 6.9.x but yet archzfs provides a package like zfs-linux 2.2.4_6.9.6.arch1.1-1 The PKGBUILD does not seem to pull any specific patches to ensure 6.9 compatibi...
I am afraid cachyos is one of those "early adopters". Be carefull.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by mbod View Post
This is a very dangerous game. cachyos has no privileged access to openzfs development. It worked out for kernel 6.12 because the openzfs developers already had the relevant 6.12 compatibility commits in github on 30. September although the kernel was only relased on 17. November. These patches could be backported to zfs 2.2.6 to make it work with kernel 6.12.
But for kernel 6.9 for example many people thought that zfs 2.2.4 was good to go because it compiled without errors. kernel 6.9 was released on 12. May but relevant zfs commits where only released as late as July 2024. Nevertheless projects like archzfs negligently provided an out of the box zfs 2.2.4 package for kernel 6.9 starting in May.
zfs 2.2.4 is not compatible with kernel 6.9.x but yet archzfs provides a package like zfs-linux 2.2.4_6.9.6.arch1.1-1 The PKGBUILD does not seem to pull any specific patches to ensure 6.9 compatibi...
I am afraid cachyos is one of those "early adopters". Be carefull.
Comment
-
-
Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
I'm honestly not going to disagree with you and, normally, prefer to stick to LTS and known stable releases for precisely those reasons. I'm making an exception right now since it can be annoying to alternate between 6.6 LTS and anything newer due to my use of SCX modules. I can't tell you how eagerly I'm awaiting the next LTS kernel.
Comment
-
Comment