6 ms·
"Issues with storage" is an understatement. Linux has major issues with storage. I see no way forward for Linux in that area unless they adopt ZFS. How many fi
by X86BSD 10y ago
"Issues with storage" is an understatement. Linux has major issues with storage. I see no way forward for Linux in that area unless they adopt ZFS.
How many filesystems has the Linux world created in the last 20 years? Of those how many are rotting piles of tire fire?
Filesystems are hard to get right.
ZFS is the way forward. For cross compatability, for reliability, for stability, for lots of use cases.
Btrfs is another tire to throw on the burning pile of other filesystems that won't work out in Linux.
Let the down votes begin.
But Linux has some major architectural issues that eventually the Linux faithful will have to admit to.
Containers.
Filesystems.
Observability. Though bless him Brendan Gregg is trying his hardest to help here.
Portability.
And this is what is so painful for the rest of us to watch or deal with. This inability for the Linux folks to admit these glaring architectural problems. Problems they refuse to look outside their bubble to see how others solved these problems and adopt solutions that have already solved these problems. They just want to continue to bury their heads in NIH soil. And double down on trying to solve these issues, poorly, on their own without any awareness of how others have solved these issues. People outside Linux land just might have the right ideas on how to solve these problems!
But I expect no one in that camp to acknowledge this and down vote away.
Sigh.
- steelbird 10y agoSir, you have spoken well. What OS/distro should I be looking at?
- user5994461 10y agoCoreOS, as stated by the roadmap of the article. /s
- chrisp_dc 10y agoEnterprise: Solaris and use zones. Internal/Personal/POC: FreeBSD 11 and use jails. Both get you ZFS and something lighter-weight than VMs. Need Linux? Bite the bullet and use VMs.
- X86BSD 10y agoI agree with this. SmartOS would be my choice over Solaris. I think FreeBSD is getting there. With things like Tredly. The building blocks are solid and available they just lack some polish. So if you have the skill FreeBSD. Otherwise SmartOS makes a killer setup for containers unmatched by anyone else.
- hga 10y agoA warning, though: don't try to use FreeBSD with SCSI tape drives, in my truncated experience because of what I found experience a few months ago, the driver is capable of writing without error data it then can't read back (but can be read back by Linux). Maybe not so important in the container context, but sooner or later, somewhere you need persistence, and tape offers certain persistence features you pretty much can't get elsewhere, especially at its media price points. (Plus, if they got this wrong, when it's really not that hard to get right (I've done SCSI at this level before), I wonder what else they have.)
- bergwolf 10y agowell, checkout hypercontainer (https://hypercontainer.io/ https://hypercontainer.io/) that runs on Linux, uses VMs and performs like containers. No killing yourself necessary, really ;)
- corv 10y agoSolaris is discontinued but Illumos and SmartOS have taken up the torch.
- mancerayder 10y agoAnd this is what is so painful for the rest of us to watch or deal with. This inability for the Linux folks to admit these glaring architectural problems. Alright, the suspense is killing me: what OS is the one that gets it right? I ask this to "the rest of us" as you put it.
- gkfasdfasdf 10y agoFrom the username, x86 BSD perhaps?
- X86BSD 10y agoSmartOS, FreeBSD, Tredly, etc
- mmagin 10y agoAh, you must be from the alternate universe where most of us have heard of more than one of those!
- eropple 10y agoWhat you've heard of, and what's workable and useful, do not necessarily intersect.
- SSLy 10y agoTredly is "just" a FreeBSD distribution. And Linux can't have ZFS in-tree because CDDL.
- nagvx 10y agoI can see a lot of inflammatory content here - vague accusations about "tire fire" filesystems and how Linux users are "faithful" zealots, blind to the truth, that will have to "admit" their folly and implicitly humble themselves before "the rest of us", whoever they are. And baiting a bad response, as you ask people to "downvote away" as if you want to inspire anger. All of this is needlessly confrontational. You don't need to insult your opposition to make your point.
- X86BSD 10y agoYou may view them as inflammatory. But it's coming from a POV of pain having to deal with broken architecture, piss poor portability and general pain of hacking around poorly engineered Linux architecture. Frustration, pain are more appropriate terms from my pov than inflammatory. But ymmv. It's like "Come on folks! You can do better than this! Please! Just stop! Think! Please. I'm begging you."
- FooBarWidget 10y agoRegardless of whether your point is true or not (I agree that the state of Linux is suboptimal), this kind of attitude in which you spend more on venting your emotions than on actually describing issues, will not help you get your point across, and will not help making the world better. In the worst case you may even give BSD people a bad name by making the public perceive them as a bunch of emotional haters.
- cgvgffyv 10y agoKnown troll, please ignore.
- Veratyr 10y ago> ZFS is the way forward. For cross compatability, for reliability, for stability, for lots of use cases. I'm not entirely convinced we should settle on ZFS just yet. It's fantastic and quite possibly the best option right now but it has a few limitations: - The Linux implentation seems to have issues with releasing memory from the ARC back to the system - The only way to expand a zpool is to add a new vdev. Pools are essentially a RAID0 of vdevs so if a single vdev fails, your entire server fails. You can mirror or RAID within a vdev but this means that the reliability of a vdev is the reliability of your entire pool. The problem here is that you can't just add 1 or 2 new disks since adding a 1 or 2 disk vdev would be data-suicide. For smaller servers, this is silly. BTRFS looked like it was getting there but it proved buggy and unreliable. Personally, I'm waiting for bcachefs: https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs https://www.patreon.com/bcachefs
- empthought 10y agoThere's nothing wrong with a 2-disk vdev. Mirrored instead of RAIDZ is probably the best choice for "smaller servers."
- X86BSD 10y agoI use stripped mirrors for most of my ZFS deployments. Disk is cheap. If you want more resilience do a three way mirror.
- Veratyr 10y agoI strongly disagree. If I have an 8 disk server at home with mirroring, the pool could only take a single disk failure. The usable space would be 50% of the total disk. Further, I'd have to buy any extra disks in pairs. If instead I ran RAID6, I'd have 80% of the disk available and I could add disks in single disk increments. I think ZFS makes great sense for businesses that can throw money at disks but for smaller businesses or home servers it's kinda bad.
- X86BSD 10y agoYou also wouldn't get the same I/O performance a stripped mirror will give you. You can get extra resiliency using a three disk mirror. Disk is cheap. There's no reason to design like it's not.
- aseipp 10y agoMany Linux users in particular are pretty well aware of the shortcomings of Linux's filesystem scenario, as well as the fact we never had features like DTrace. (I still think the over-proliferation of Linux tracing tools that fit 10,000 different case is a bit ridiculous.) As someone who worked on a distro, I've been acutely aware of many of these things, for example, as have our users (because they inevitably come to us for advice, suggestions, or bug reports). I'm not sure what reality you live in where Linux users like, actively deny things like lacking an appropriate COW filesystem with low latency, or things like the fact it took us a decade to get only close to DTrace. Your own mind? 6 month Ubuntu users? Internet forums where you talk to other BSD users and nobody else? > Let the down votes begin. Don't worry, I'm sure people will oblige.
- deadbunny 10y agoAh yes, ZFS the saviour. Just as long as it does't get anywhere near capacity.
- X86BSD 10y agoI assume you are referring to the same limitations almost every FS on earth to date suffers from when you consume about 90% capacity? What a useless comment. If you are running out of capacity adding disks to a zpool is incredibly mind numbingly easy. "zfs add poolname mirror disk1 disk2" Every filesystem has performance hit the floor when you consume all available capacity. This is not unique to ZFS but to well, reality.
- SrslyJosh 10y agoInit systems.
- KaiserPro 10y agoI like ZFS, However XFS is perfectly good for storage. I've used it on 15pbs worth of fileservers with no particular nonsense. I wouldn't touch BTRFS with a barge pole, not because of any inherent stability issues (although that is a big factor) its the utter nastyness of the tooling. ZFS is a joy to setup, and its simple, logical and the man pages tell you useful things. BTRFS, not so much
- mioelnir 10y agoMy favorite XFS workflow: 1. filesystem is corrupted, once again 2. try to repair it 3. oh right, the repair tool can not replay the journal 4. try to mount it 5. admit after 3 hours of nothing that the journal-replay code triggered on mount actually can really not deal with corruption 6. reboot the server to get the filesystem unstuck 7. rerun repair, this time throwing away the journal 8. look at the empty filesystem with everything in lost+found 9. restore from backup The team I'm in only runs 1'400 servers, yet this happens regularly.
- KaiserPro 10y agopoint taken. I have had xfs_check run out of memory because $reasons. This has reminded me of that. But then we also had lustre, so you know, by comparison XFS is a paragon of stability (We also had clustered XFS....) But, mostly it happens because the fileservers dont have UPS's (The pipeline tools are almost exclusively COW, and backups are tested many times a week.) I think we paid for support on XFS from either redhat or SGI, but I can't remember, I left that place a year or so ago. I've never had the balls to run ZFS on large(100tb+) arrays. Last time I tried the way slab handling was translated from solaris cause many problems (but that was more than 4 years ago. ) Plus the support is a bit odd, you either go with oracle(fuck that), or one of the openZFS lot. To get the best performance/stability you ideally need to let ZFS do everything, instead of letting the enclosure do the raid 6 (4 * 14 disk raid 6 with 4 spares). This of course is a break from the norm and to be treated with utmost suspicion. Have you seen the GPFS raid replacement? thats quite sexy. I run ZFS at home, because it works, and has bitrot checking.