3 ms·

9 years old, with 70 releases, and still not good enough for a 1.0 release, huh? Guess I'll wait until they think it is ready for production.....

lelf 8y ago
FreeBSD and SmartOS have rock-solid ZFS.
laumars 8y ago
Firstly this is ZoL, not ZFS. And secondly version numbers are often a meaningless gauge of when something is production ready. In any production environment you'd need to thoroughly test any new technology (or even point releases of existing tech) before deploying to prod because regression bugs and undocumented behaviour is a real thing. As an aside, I've been running ZFS since shortly after it's release and have ran it across 4 distinct operating systems in that time. It's honestly been one of the best pieces of engineering I've used in that time. To the extent that ZFS has saved me from total data loss (ignoring, for the moment, backups) on at least two separate occasions.
- freddie_mercury 8y ago
  9 years and 70 releases is referring to ZoL. I use ZFS. I am mocking open source developers' terror of calling something a 1.0 release. At the same time they say release numbers aren't an indication of quality their actions tell us that release numbers matter a lot and that's why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release.
  - laumars 8y ago
    > 9 years and 70 releases is referring to ZoL. Wow time flies! Feels like only yesterday I was reading about the inception of that project.
  - jordanbeiber 8y ago
    The idea I guess is that many project historically use the power of the decimals to indicate major from minor versions. That’s it. This ”scared” and ”terror” talk is a bit unnecessary as the only one interested in numbers in a version no. is someone selling it. Linus is mocking this very fact by arbitrarily raising the kernel version.
  - vetinari 8y ago
    > why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release. Given that ZoL doesn't support reflink (ficlone/ficlonerange; see also https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405 https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405), and that ZFS is a CoW filesystem, that's pretty good reason not to have 1.0 release. In other words, there is no way no use a key feauture, without enabling deduplication (that's exactly that feature, that requires heaps of RAM).
qalmakka 8y ago
I use ZoL and FreeBSD+ZFS almost on every single system I own, and it's as reliable as a filesystem can be. Btrfs and friends are still miles away from this level of reliability, imho. Heck even git snapshots of ZoL have never failed me, except once where they changed some file structure and I had to migrate a few datasets using unstable features.

lelf 8y ago

FreeBSD and SmartOS have rock-solid ZFS.

laumars 8y ago

Firstly this is ZoL, not ZFS. And secondly version numbers are often a meaningless gauge of when something is production ready. In any production environment you'd need to thoroughly test any new technology (or even point releases of existing tech) before deploying to prod because regression bugs and undocumented behaviour is a real thing. As an aside, I've been running ZFS since shortly after it's release and have ran it across 4 distinct operating systems in that time. It's honestly been one of the best pieces of engineering I've used in that time. To the extent that ZFS has saved me from total data loss (ignoring, for the moment, backups) on at least two separate occasions.

freddie_mercury 8y ago
9 years and 70 releases is referring to ZoL. I use ZFS. I am mocking open source developers' terror of calling something a 1.0 release. At the same time they say release numbers aren't an indication of quality their actions tell us that release numbers matter a lot and that's why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release.
- laumars 8y ago
  > 9 years and 70 releases is referring to ZoL. Wow time flies! Feels like only yesterday I was reading about the inception of that project.
- jordanbeiber 8y ago
  The idea I guess is that many project historically use the power of the decimals to indicate major from minor versions. That’s it. This ”scared” and ”terror” talk is a bit unnecessary as the only one interested in numbers in a version no. is someone selling it. Linus is mocking this very fact by arbitrarily raising the kernel version.
- vetinari 8y ago
  > why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release. Given that ZoL doesn't support reflink (ficlone/ficlonerange; see also https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405 https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405), and that ZFS is a CoW filesystem, that's pretty good reason not to have 1.0 release. In other words, there is no way no use a key feauture, without enabling deduplication (that's exactly that feature, that requires heaps of RAM).

qalmakka 8y ago

I use ZoL and FreeBSD+ZFS almost on every single system I own, and it's as reliable as a filesystem can be. Btrfs and friends are still miles away from this level of reliability, imho. Heck even git snapshots of ZoL have never failed me, except once where they changed some file structure and I had to migrate a few datasets using unstable features.