OpenZFS 2.2.7 Released With Linux 6.12 Support, Many Fixes

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

  • archkde
    replied
    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.
    It might be good news for you then that 6.12 is the next LTS kernel.

    Leave a comment:


  • deusexmachina
    replied
    If there's a world war do we still have to follow "the law" and not merge ZFS into the kernel? Seems like Oracle should just change the license to be seen in a less negative light.
    Anyway, great release!

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • mbod
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Some 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.
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Developer12
    replied
    Originally posted by cen1 View Post
    If 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.
    I gave ubuntu server 24.04 another try after a poor experience with 20.04, and it turned out alright. it comes with out-of-the-box support for ZFS.

    Leave a comment:


  • Developer12
    replied
    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.
    most people who care about data integrity want a stable, reliable system, so it doesn't make sense to use anything but an LTS kernel. running a mainline kernel for anything that's supposed to be reliable is utter madness.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guiorgy
    replied
    Originally posted by skeevy420 View Post
    Some 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.
    I'm using Ubuntu LTS on a server (no DE), so it serves my needs perfectly fine. However, I understand your point, I'll check and consider CachyOS as my next desktop OS (currently using Pop!_OS).

    Leave a comment:


  • skeevy420
    replied
    Originally posted by Guiorgy View Post

    I'm running Ubuntu LTS with ZFS root and home, while not exactly Debian, should be close enough?
    Some 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.

    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Guiorgy
    replied
    Originally posted by cen1 View Post
    If only I could just spin up Debian and have ZFS out of the box ...
    I'm running Ubuntu LTS with ZFS root and home, while not exactly Debian, should be close enough?

    Leave a comment:


  • mbod
    replied
    Originally posted by cen1 View Post
    [...] and not signed by a distro so I can't secure boot.
    This is wrong. mokutil can sign the module which enables secure boot. See here instructions for debian:





    Leave a comment:

Working...
X