6 ms·

I think Ubuntu adoption of ZFS is a testament that it is here to stay. Btrfs still has some issues (eg stability), which ZFS simply doesn’t have. It’s rock soli

I think Ubuntu adoption of ZFS is a testament that it is here to stay. Btrfs still has some issues (eg stability), which ZFS simply doesn’t have. It’s rock solid.

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
Fedora is going to BTRFS. I guess that means it is being at least considered for RHEL 9 or 10. I can't see RH choosing ZFS unless the license is sorted out.
- throwaway8941 6y ago
  I have no relation to either Fedora or RH, but have gone through quite a bit of their mailing lists in the past few months. Fedora adopting btrfs has nothing to do with RHEL and they don't seem to be considering it at all. Red Hat threw all their weight behind XFS with advanced features being added mostly through separate layers (e.g. stratis).
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    I also have no relationship to RH other than as a user of their free stuff. Yes when it became apparent that BTRFS was not ready RH did that. It was a slight surprise when it happened if I remember correctly. I said RHEL v9 OR 10. I guess 9 is unlikely but 10 is a number of years off. If BTFS is a sucess on Fedora and stable then they will surely consider it. That is the point of Fedora...
    - freedomben 6y ago
      I work for Red Hat but have no insight into any of the Stratis/Btrfs/etc stuff. I'm just a long time Fedora user. I would agree with you. Fedora adopting stuff does not mean RHEL will include it, but if it's successful/popular on Fedora then Red Hat will surely be paying attention. RHEL tries to follow Fedora as closely as possible, I would imagine this is a shot for btrfs, but certainly no guarantee.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  Red Hat previously added btrfs to RHEL as a "Technology Preview", only to later remove it (they didn't really have anyone left devoting resources to it, IIRC), deciding to focus on stratis / VDO instead [0]. They do have several XFS folks, though (or did, last I knew). FWIW, SUSE is the Enterprise Linux vendor that has went "all in" on btrfs. --- Two semi-related, personal thoughts: 1. btrfs today feels a lot like reiserfs did (going on / nearly) 20 years ago. 2. I expect Oracle to -- at some point -- integrate ZFS into Oracle (Enterprise) Linux. That seems like a great way for them to win over some "converts" from RHEL. --- [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    Oracle would need to release another version of ZFS than the current ZFS on Linux to avoid the license issues...
    - AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
      Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues.
    - hnlmorg 6y ago
      @AlgorithmicTime you've been shadow banned it seems but you did raise a point that is worth expanding on: > Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues. Oracle owning ZFS doesn't magically absolve them of risk however it does reduce the risk. But with ZFS being open source, another contributor might have a claim if Oracle were to breach the CDDL license with code written by said contributor (similar to the SCO vs UNIX lawsuits of yesteryear). To get around this Oracle would need to contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change. This would, in all practicality, then be reflected in a new release (like the GP suggested). However it is now even more complicated than that because OpenZFS (which is what Linux runs) has diverged from ZFS (which Oracle maintain). So while Oracle would need to agree to any changes in the licensing of OpenZFS (as there's still Oracle code present in OpenZFS), Oracle are not the ones maintaining it and nor could they ship their own version of ZFS as Linux kernel modules to answer any concerns with either OpenZFS licensing nor compatibility with other Linuxes running OpenZFS.
- vetinari 6y ago
  Redhat has a problem that Fedora doesn't have: they stick to a kernel version through the entire release life cycle. In other words, they are stuck with a specific kernel for at least 10 years. Btrfs goes though a rapid development; so Redhat has to backport everything to their ancient 3.10 (RHEL7) kernel all the time. That's a lot of work. Fedora, on the other hand, uses current kernels. They do not have to do this work. Redhat also cannot choose ZFS while in the license limbo; that's why they push for Stratis.
KozmoNau7 6y ago
SUSE and openSUSE have been using Btrfs as the default FS (with a sensible default subvolume setup and rolling snapshots) for some time now. It is stable, certainly stable enough for enterprise production use according to SUSE.
- throw0101a 6y ago
  How's the RAID-5/6 functionality? Also, do these Debian cautionary notes still apply to new code: > There is currently (2019-07-07, linux ≤ 5.1.16) a bug that causes a two-disk raid1 profile to forever become read-only the second time it is mounted in a degraded state * https://wiki.debian.org/Btrfs#Warnings https://wiki.debian.org/Btrfs#Warnings
  - KozmoNau7 6y ago
    Don't use RAID5/6 in production. This is well-documented , and the remaining issue (the write hole) is being worked on. As with any software, don't use features not marked stable in production. As for the write-only bug, 1) that only affects 2-disk RAID1 setups where people insist on cowboying around with their degraded arrays, and 2) doesn't result in data loss, merely an additional copy step to restore the array. Don't run your arrays in a degraded state, please. As I wrote, SUSE considers Btrfs stable for production use, and they're the premier enterprise distro in Europe.
    - throw0101a 6y ago
      > Don't run your arrays in a degraded state, please. That's easy to say, but if you get a bad disk in a mirror on your boot drives, and for some reason your system restarts during this time period, you boot up into read-only mode--which kind of keeps your server down and kills service availability. I don't run Btrfs, and so heard about this scenario from Jim Salter (the author of the linked Ars article) in his podcast: * https://2.5admins.com/2-5-admins-03/ https://2.5admins.com/2-5-admins-03/
    - oarsinsync 6y ago
      > 2-disk RAID1 setups where people insist on cowboying around with their degraded arrays RAID1 is not a backup. Apparently under BTRFS, using RAID1 for HA isn’t acceptable either. What’s the point of a RAID1 array if you can’t use it degraded? Might as well just go RAID0 too then (you have backups anyway, right?)
Dunedan 6y ago
> I think Ubuntu adoption of ZFS is a testament that it is here to stay. Like Mir, Unity, Upstart and all the other technologies Ubuntu adopted, but removed after a while again? I always have the feeling that the Canonical engineers try to advance the Linux ecosystem by introducing new technologies, but somehow always pick the wrong ones, which end up not being adopted anywhere else. Granted that's different with ZFS, as ZFS already has a large user base, but there is nothing guaranteeing that Ubuntu won't remove ZFS in a few years again.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  As you yourself mentioned, ZFS is different. The other projects were (for the most part) anonical originals" that they tried to create -- primarily on their own -- to replace existing products. ZFS is going on 15 years old, quite mature, highly trusted, and, of course, it already has a huge existing userbase. It's certainly not an internal Canonical project that requires them to devote huge teams of developers to it. Unlike the others you mentioned, ZFS will continue to exist and grow regardless of Canonical's involvement.
  - jlgaddis 6y ago
    > anonical originals" Oof, "Canonical originals", that should have read (not sure what ate the two missing characters, HN or the iPad).
- aftergibson 6y ago
  It's in the LTS release, so hopefully it's supported for the next while and given time to mature.
- beagle3 6y ago
  Unity is still there in 20.04 and usable, though no longer default. It had a long run, and it’s still more usable than gnome3 for power users. Unity wasn’t successful but wasn’t deficient. Upstart wasn’t as good as systemd that cane after it or daemontools that came before, but it WAS an upgrade compared to the knit scripts. Ubuntu/canonical are not afraid to try, which I think deserves more credit. They don’t have the clout/pockets to push less popular things like systemd the way RedHat does, until all the problems are sufficiently minor. Oh, and snap and Mir we’re both attempts at grabbing control and both deserve the scorn.

I think Ubuntu adoption of ZFS is a testament that it is here to stay. Btrfs still has some issues (eg stability), which ZFS simply doesn’t have. It’s rock solid.

gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago

Fedora is going to BTRFS. I guess that means it is being at least considered for RHEL 9 or 10. I can't see RH choosing ZFS unless the license is sorted out.

throwaway8941 6y ago
I have no relation to either Fedora or RH, but have gone through quite a bit of their mailing lists in the past few months. Fedora adopting btrfs has nothing to do with RHEL and they don't seem to be considering it at all. Red Hat threw all their weight behind XFS with advanced features being added mostly through separate layers (e.g. stratis).
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  I also have no relationship to RH other than as a user of their free stuff. Yes when it became apparent that BTRFS was not ready RH did that. It was a slight surprise when it happened if I remember correctly. I said RHEL v9 OR 10. I guess 9 is unlikely but 10 is a number of years off. If BTFS is a sucess on Fedora and stable then they will surely consider it. That is the point of Fedora...
  - freedomben 6y ago
    I work for Red Hat but have no insight into any of the Stratis/Btrfs/etc stuff. I'm just a long time Fedora user. I would agree with you. Fedora adopting stuff does not mean RHEL will include it, but if it's successful/popular on Fedora then Red Hat will surely be paying attention. RHEL tries to follow Fedora as closely as possible, I would imagine this is a shot for btrfs, but certainly no guarantee.
jlgaddis 6y ago
Red Hat previously added btrfs to RHEL as a "Technology Preview", only to later remove it (they didn't really have anyone left devoting resources to it, IIRC), deciding to focus on stratis / VDO instead [0]. They do have several XFS folks, though (or did, last I knew). FWIW, SUSE is the Enterprise Linux vendor that has went "all in" on btrfs. --- Two semi-related, personal thoughts: 1. btrfs today feels a lot like reiserfs did (going on / nearly) 20 years ago. 2. I expect Oracle to -- at some point -- integrate ZFS into Oracle (Enterprise) Linux. That seems like a great way for them to win over some "converts" from RHEL. --- [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14907771
- gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
  Oracle would need to release another version of ZFS than the current ZFS on Linux to avoid the license issues...
  - AlgorithmicTime 6y ago
    Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues.
  - hnlmorg 6y ago
    @AlgorithmicTime you've been shadow banned it seems but you did raise a point that is worth expanding on: > Oracle owns ZFS. Or, rather, it bought Sun, which was the company which originally wrote ZFS. So, it doesn't really need to worry about the licensing issues. Oracle owning ZFS doesn't magically absolve them of risk however it does reduce the risk. But with ZFS being open source, another contributor might have a claim if Oracle were to breach the CDDL license with code written by said contributor (similar to the SCO vs UNIX lawsuits of yesteryear). To get around this Oracle would need to contact all 3rd party contributors and get the to agree to a license change. This would, in all practicality, then be reflected in a new release (like the GP suggested). However it is now even more complicated than that because OpenZFS (which is what Linux runs) has diverged from ZFS (which Oracle maintain). So while Oracle would need to agree to any changes in the licensing of OpenZFS (as there's still Oracle code present in OpenZFS), Oracle are not the ones maintaining it and nor could they ship their own version of ZFS as Linux kernel modules to answer any concerns with either OpenZFS licensing nor compatibility with other Linuxes running OpenZFS.
vetinari 6y ago
Redhat has a problem that Fedora doesn't have: they stick to a kernel version through the entire release life cycle. In other words, they are stuck with a specific kernel for at least 10 years. Btrfs goes though a rapid development; so Redhat has to backport everything to their ancient 3.10 (RHEL7) kernel all the time. That's a lot of work. Fedora, on the other hand, uses current kernels. They do not have to do this work. Redhat also cannot choose ZFS while in the license limbo; that's why they push for Stratis.

KozmoNau7 6y ago

SUSE and openSUSE have been using Btrfs as the default FS (with a sensible default subvolume setup and rolling snapshots) for some time now. It is stable, certainly stable enough for enterprise production use according to SUSE.

throw0101a 6y ago
How's the RAID-5/6 functionality? Also, do these Debian cautionary notes still apply to new code: > There is currently (2019-07-07, linux ≤ 5.1.16) a bug that causes a two-disk raid1 profile to forever become read-only the second time it is mounted in a degraded state * https://wiki.debian.org/Btrfs#Warnings https://wiki.debian.org/Btrfs#Warnings
- KozmoNau7 6y ago
  Don't use RAID5/6 in production. This is well-documented , and the remaining issue (the write hole) is being worked on. As with any software, don't use features not marked stable in production. As for the write-only bug, 1) that only affects 2-disk RAID1 setups where people insist on cowboying around with their degraded arrays, and 2) doesn't result in data loss, merely an additional copy step to restore the array. Don't run your arrays in a degraded state, please. As I wrote, SUSE considers Btrfs stable for production use, and they're the premier enterprise distro in Europe.
  - throw0101a 6y ago
    > Don't run your arrays in a degraded state, please. That's easy to say, but if you get a bad disk in a mirror on your boot drives, and for some reason your system restarts during this time period, you boot up into read-only mode--which kind of keeps your server down and kills service availability. I don't run Btrfs, and so heard about this scenario from Jim Salter (the author of the linked Ars article) in his podcast: * https://2.5admins.com/2-5-admins-03/ https://2.5admins.com/2-5-admins-03/
  - oarsinsync 6y ago
    > 2-disk RAID1 setups where people insist on cowboying around with their degraded arrays RAID1 is not a backup. Apparently under BTRFS, using RAID1 for HA isn’t acceptable either. What’s the point of a RAID1 array if you can’t use it degraded? Might as well just go RAID0 too then (you have backups anyway, right?)

Dunedan 6y ago

> I think Ubuntu adoption of ZFS is a testament that it is here to stay. Like Mir, Unity, Upstart and all the other technologies Ubuntu adopted, but removed after a while again? I always have the feeling that the Canonical engineers try to advance the Linux ecosystem by introducing new technologies, but somehow always pick the wrong ones, which end up not being adopted anywhere else. Granted that's different with ZFS, as ZFS already has a large user base, but there is nothing guaranteeing that Ubuntu won't remove ZFS in a few years again.

jlgaddis 6y ago
As you yourself mentioned, ZFS is different. The other projects were (for the most part) anonical originals" that they tried to create -- primarily on their own -- to replace existing products. ZFS is going on 15 years old, quite mature, highly trusted, and, of course, it already has a huge existing userbase. It's certainly not an internal Canonical project that requires them to devote huge teams of developers to it. Unlike the others you mentioned, ZFS will continue to exist and grow regardless of Canonical's involvement.
- jlgaddis 6y ago
  > anonical originals" Oof, "Canonical originals", that should have read (not sure what ate the two missing characters, HN or the iPad).
aftergibson 6y ago
It's in the LTS release, so hopefully it's supported for the next while and given time to mature.
beagle3 6y ago
Unity is still there in 20.04 and usable, though no longer default. It had a long run, and it’s still more usable than gnome3 for power users. Unity wasn’t successful but wasn’t deficient. Upstart wasn’t as good as systemd that cane after it or daemontools that came before, but it WAS an upgrade compared to the knit scripts. Ubuntu/canonical are not afraid to try, which I think deserves more credit. They don’t have the clout/pockets to push less popular things like systemd the way RedHat does, until all the problems are sufficiently minor. Oh, and snap and Mir we’re both attempts at grabbing control and both deserve the scorn.