4 ms·

> Firstly the claim that freebsd has wider testing is utter trash. In terms of TBs installed ZFS on linux >> freenas/freebsd the amount of money behind ZoL is n

by cm3 11y ago

> Firstly the claim that freebsd has wider testing is utter trash. In terms of TBs installed ZFS on linux >> freenas/freebsd the amount of money behind ZoL is now surprisingly large. In that case OmniOS (or any IllumOS based) distribution is a much better choice. It has a more full featured ZFS (features not yet ported to FreeBSD or ZoL) and a more complete set of DTrace probes to analyze problems. Moreover it's still the OpenZFS upstream for all intents and purposes, but that may change in the future. On top of that ZFS on Solaris doesn't try to fit into a foreign kernel. I'm not sure but FreeBSD's GELI or Linux's LUKS may be missing on Illumos (but exists in Oracle Solaris 11), so that can be a disadvantage. If none of Linux, Illumos or FreeBSD is to your liking, you can try ZFS on NetBSD.

feld 11y ago
I wish people would stop with the FUD here. Matthew Ahrens has publicly stated that FreeBSD and Solaris derivatives are equal as far as ZFS goes and OSX and Linux are trailing behind.
- cm3 11y ago
  If that's true then bsdnow.tv should be informed. In a couple discussions and interviews (Bryan?) they talk about feature disparity and that a newer OpenZFS version needs to be imported into FreeBSD trunk. It's still true that if you want to analyze serious issues, IllumOS DTrace probes will be more complete. With that being said, I'm glad to hear FreeBSD is not behind IllumOS ZFS. FreeBSD has wider hardware support than IllumOS and thus is preferred by most users.
  - feld 11y ago
    We're talking about bleeding edge features that were just created, and yes they're often modeled upstream in Illumos. However, there are other features that have been created by companies using FreeBSD first. But they tend to get pushed up to OpenZFS first and then trickle back down to vanilla FreeBSD. When it comes to stability and performance FreeBSD == Illumos. I wouldn't worry so much about features anymore, because as soon as they're available they get pulled in. Last I looked the awesome ZFS features that are coming still weren't fully accepted upstream yet.

by cm3 11y ago

feld 11y ago

I wish people would stop with the FUD here. Matthew Ahrens has publicly stated that FreeBSD and Solaris derivatives are equal as far as ZFS goes and OSX and Linux are trailing behind.

cm3 11y ago
If that's true then bsdnow.tv should be informed. In a couple discussions and interviews (Bryan?) they talk about feature disparity and that a newer OpenZFS version needs to be imported into FreeBSD trunk. It's still true that if you want to analyze serious issues, IllumOS DTrace probes will be more complete. With that being said, I'm glad to hear FreeBSD is not behind IllumOS ZFS. FreeBSD has wider hardware support than IllumOS and thus is preferred by most users.
- feld 11y ago
  We're talking about bleeding edge features that were just created, and yes they're often modeled upstream in Illumos. However, there are other features that have been created by companies using FreeBSD first. But they tend to get pushed up to OpenZFS first and then trickle back down to vanilla FreeBSD. When it comes to stability and performance FreeBSD == Illumos. I wouldn't worry so much about features anymore, because as soon as they're available they get pulled in. Last I looked the awesome ZFS features that are coming still weren't fully accepted upstream yet.