8 ms·

I was kinda bummed when Apple announced that they are going with APFS instead of ZFS. I think ZFS is one of the biggest engineering feats in last decade or so o

I was kinda bummed when Apple announced that they are going with APFS instead of ZFS. I think ZFS is one of the biggest engineering feats in last decade or so of software engineering. It still needs wider adoption.

ohtwenty 9y ago
How do you think they could achieve wider adoption?
- kawsper 9y ago
  The problem is the license, which ZFS on Linux covers a bit here: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ#licensing https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ#licensing You can see some of the fun hoops you have to go through to get ZFS as your root filesystem here: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu-16.04-Root-on-ZFS https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu-16.04-Root-on-... For now I just have 4 disks in a ZFS-raid for storage, and then I have installed my OS on a separate SSD.
  - RantyDave 9y ago
    Ubuntu has it built in and ready to go. But not for the root drive (that way lies madness).
    - lscotte 9y ago
      It's quite excellent for the root drive, you just have to install via debootstrap. I personally do this on all my 1/2 dozen boxes (Straight Debian usually, but some Ubuntu). I've also written up how to build an AWS AMI this way. Good stuff, It's only going to get easier.
      - mst 9y ago
        > I've also written up how to build an AWS AMI this way If you've written it up in public, any chance of a link?
        detaro 9y ago
        from their submission history: https://scotte.org/2016/12/ZFS-root-filesystem-on-AWS https://scotte.org/2016/12/ZFS-root-filesystem-on-AWS
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      It's not difficult really (assuming one can/is willing to RTFM), just a little more involved and time-consuming to get set up. I've used ZFS on / on Ubuntu a handful of times and all of the machines I use on a daily basis (a high-end workstation and a pair of laptops, all running Arch Linux) all use ZFS exclusively.
      - vetinari 9y ago
        I have one (centos) machine with zfs on /. Looking back, it was a mistake - I always dread, when I see grub update in the yum update list, what will break this time. And of course, after each kernel update, link your /dev/by-id/... devices into /dev and rerun grub2-mkconfig by hand. Otherwise, you won't boot the new kernel you just updated. If this machine weren't a pet, it would be wiped clean and reinstalled with xfs /.
        jlgaddis 9y ago
        Wow. That sounds like something isn't configured quite right. Or perhaps ZFS just isn't as well "integrated" on CentOS. All of my Linux machines with ZFS are running Arch Linux (as well as a few servers running FreeBSD) and I don't have to do anything special. For example, I'll update them every few days (or whenever I don't mind having to "re-open" all my applications, tabs, etc.) and I just run "pacaur -Syyu", have it update everything, and reboot when it's done. It starts back up, I enter in my FDE passphrase, and it boots right up.
        vetinari 9y ago
        It is actually a known issue between ZoL and GRUB: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/grub/issues/5 https://github.com/zfsonlinux/grub/issues/5 zpool status will show only basename component of the device name and grub will look for it in /dev only. As I created the pool with ata-* device names, which are constant per device, it will of course fail, because they are in the /dev/by-id/ and grub is not looking for them there. Next time there is a kernel update, I' going to try the env variable mentioned in the august 2017 comment. Hopefully it will work right.
        9y ago
    - johnramsden 9y ago
      Not really, I use it on Arch as my root drive https://ramsdenj.com/2016/06/23/arch-linux-on-zfs-part-2-installation.html https://ramsdenj.com/2016/06/23/arch-linux-on-zfs-part-2-ins... and never have a problem. It's been useful multiple times for informing me that I have a problem disc, and being able to go back in time and look at how things have changed on my system with snapshots is of great benefit. Being able to rollback, clone filesystems and send them around is great too. With archzfs I get binary upgrades with every kernel, and I've never had a problem at boot after a kernel update.
  - mitchty 9y ago
    The license is only a problem for gpl. Note that FreeBSD uses zfs and has for quite some time.
    - kawsper 9y ago
      Yes - that is true, and it seems like ZFS usage is much higher there because of that.
  - cryptonector 9y ago
    The problem back when was that Sun wouldn't indemnify Apple against third party patent claims. Now that Solaris is dead it is unclear what Oracle's intentions are, but in any case, surely Apple would have similar desires.
- lmm 9y ago
  It's happening via NAS-type devices - a lot of those use ZFS behind the scenes. Once people get used to that kind of functionality, they'll ask why their computer doesn't do that on its local drive, maybe.
aidenn0 9y ago
It would really be nice if there were a way to shrink vdevs on a live filesystem. That's the one feature that ZFS can't do at all that other filesystems can do equivalents of.
- SSLy 9y ago
  if you count XFS as “that other fs”, then no, it can't
  - aidenn0 9y ago
    Other FSs can shrink partitions without losing data; ZFS can't. The fact that XFS can't doesn't make my statement false.
    - feld 9y ago
      Other filesystems will lose your data or write corrupted data
      - rbanffy 9y ago
        APFS and BtrFS at least won't.
        feld 9y ago
        APFS doesn't checksum the data. You've been deceived. BTRFS still cannot be trusted for various reasons. It was deprecated as of RHEL 7.4
        tavert 9y ago
        What reasons? openSUSE is defaulting to btrfs. snapper is really sweet.
        cpuguy83 9y ago
Asmod4n 9y ago
The moment Oracle bought ZFS and Java Apple ditched all plans for both.
rodgerd 9y ago
ZFS would be terrible for most of Apple's use cases. It is definitely designed around the assumption of fairly active sysadmins a la Solaris in 2005. It's very good at what it does within that assumption, of course. But do you think behaviours like "you filled up too much of your disk, performance is crippled unless you wipe and rebuild" is "Just Works"?

ohtwenty 9y ago

How do you think they could achieve wider adoption?

kawsper 9y ago
The problem is the license, which ZFS on Linux covers a bit here: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ#licensing https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/FAQ#licensing You can see some of the fun hoops you have to go through to get ZFS as your root filesystem here: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu-16.04-Root-on-ZFS https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/wiki/Ubuntu-16.04-Root-on-... For now I just have 4 disks in a ZFS-raid for storage, and then I have installed my OS on a separate SSD.
- RantyDave 9y ago
  Ubuntu has it built in and ready to go. But not for the root drive (that way lies madness).
  - lscotte 9y ago
    It's quite excellent for the root drive, you just have to install via debootstrap. I personally do this on all my 1/2 dozen boxes (Straight Debian usually, but some Ubuntu). I've also written up how to build an AWS AMI this way. Good stuff, It's only going to get easier.
    - mst 9y ago
      > I've also written up how to build an AWS AMI this way If you've written it up in public, any chance of a link?
      - detaro 9y ago
        from their submission history: https://scotte.org/2016/12/ZFS-root-filesystem-on-AWS https://scotte.org/2016/12/ZFS-root-filesystem-on-AWS
  - jlgaddis 9y ago
    It's not difficult really (assuming one can/is willing to RTFM), just a little more involved and time-consuming to get set up. I've used ZFS on / on Ubuntu a handful of times and all of the machines I use on a daily basis (a high-end workstation and a pair of laptops, all running Arch Linux) all use ZFS exclusively.
    - vetinari 9y ago
      I have one (centos) machine with zfs on /. Looking back, it was a mistake - I always dread, when I see grub update in the yum update list, what will break this time. And of course, after each kernel update, link your /dev/by-id/... devices into /dev and rerun grub2-mkconfig by hand. Otherwise, you won't boot the new kernel you just updated. If this machine weren't a pet, it would be wiped clean and reinstalled with xfs /.
      - jlgaddis 9y ago
        Wow. That sounds like something isn't configured quite right. Or perhaps ZFS just isn't as well "integrated" on CentOS. All of my Linux machines with ZFS are running Arch Linux (as well as a few servers running FreeBSD) and I don't have to do anything special. For example, I'll update them every few days (or whenever I don't mind having to "re-open" all my applications, tabs, etc.) and I just run "pacaur -Syyu", have it update everything, and reboot when it's done. It starts back up, I enter in my FDE passphrase, and it boots right up.
        vetinari 9y ago
        It is actually a known issue between ZoL and GRUB: https://github.com/zfsonlinux/grub/issues/5 https://github.com/zfsonlinux/grub/issues/5 zpool status will show only basename component of the device name and grub will look for it in /dev only. As I created the pool with ata-* device names, which are constant per device, it will of course fail, because they are in the /dev/by-id/ and grub is not looking for them there. Next time there is a kernel update, I' going to try the env variable mentioned in the august 2017 comment. Hopefully it will work right.
      - 9y ago
  - johnramsden 9y ago
    Not really, I use it on Arch as my root drive https://ramsdenj.com/2016/06/23/arch-linux-on-zfs-part-2-installation.html https://ramsdenj.com/2016/06/23/arch-linux-on-zfs-part-2-ins... and never have a problem. It's been useful multiple times for informing me that I have a problem disc, and being able to go back in time and look at how things have changed on my system with snapshots is of great benefit. Being able to rollback, clone filesystems and send them around is great too. With archzfs I get binary upgrades with every kernel, and I've never had a problem at boot after a kernel update.
- mitchty 9y ago
  The license is only a problem for gpl. Note that FreeBSD uses zfs and has for quite some time.
  - kawsper 9y ago
    Yes - that is true, and it seems like ZFS usage is much higher there because of that.
- cryptonector 9y ago
  The problem back when was that Sun wouldn't indemnify Apple against third party patent claims. Now that Solaris is dead it is unclear what Oracle's intentions are, but in any case, surely Apple would have similar desires.
lmm 9y ago
It's happening via NAS-type devices - a lot of those use ZFS behind the scenes. Once people get used to that kind of functionality, they'll ask why their computer doesn't do that on its local drive, maybe.

aidenn0 9y ago

It would really be nice if there were a way to shrink vdevs on a live filesystem. That's the one feature that ZFS can't do at all that other filesystems can do equivalents of.

SSLy 9y ago
if you count XFS as “that other fs”, then no, it can't
- aidenn0 9y ago
  Other FSs can shrink partitions without losing data; ZFS can't. The fact that XFS can't doesn't make my statement false.
  - feld 9y ago
    Other filesystems will lose your data or write corrupted data
    - rbanffy 9y ago
      APFS and BtrFS at least won't.
      - feld 9y ago
        APFS doesn't checksum the data. You've been deceived. BTRFS still cannot be trusted for various reasons. It was deprecated as of RHEL 7.4
        tavert 9y ago
        What reasons? openSUSE is defaulting to btrfs. snapper is really sweet.
        cpuguy83 9y ago

Asmod4n 9y ago

The moment Oracle bought ZFS and Java Apple ditched all plans for both.

rodgerd 9y ago

ZFS would be terrible for most of Apple's use cases. It is definitely designed around the assumption of fairly active sysadmins a la Solaris in 2005. It's very good at what it does within that assumption, of course. But do you think behaviours like "you filled up too much of your disk, performance is crippled unless you wipe and rebuild" is "Just Works"?