4 ms·

Has there been any progress on the zfs on linux Linus disagreement front since this article? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/linus-torvalds-zfs-stateme

Has there been any progress on the zfs on linux Linus disagreement front since this article? https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/linus-torvalds-zfs-statements-arent-right-heres-the-straight-dope/ https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2020/01/linus-torvalds-zfs-s...

ed25519FUUU 6y ago
zfs on linux available as root partition since 20.04. Working quite well I might add!
- gilrain 6y ago
  It's still a big pain if you like to keep your kernel relatively up to date. I switched to btrfs; it just working is worth the few extra warts over ZFS.
  - xenophonf 6y ago
    I've had zero problems with kernel updates on Ubuntu 20.04 with ZFS on a natively encrypted root. I followed the instructions in the wiki, lightly modified for my hardware and workload: https://gist.github.com/xenophonf/76fd44ae24772e457cb63d00c00a5967 https://gist.github.com/xenophonf/76fd44ae24772e457cb63d00c0... `apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -y` works as expected. I plan to switch to a similar config on my Lenovo laptop when I upgrade it to the next Ubuntu LTS release.
    - accelbred 6y ago
      Ubuntu's kernel isn't exactly keeping up to date though. I assume the person you were replying to may be following mainline. As someone using new kernel version as they are released, I'm not willing to use a filesystem that may break with a kernel update. It also seems openzfs only supports up to kernel 5.6, according the the github release. I'm on 5.9, so its not even an option.
      - kitotik 6y ago
        I’ve ran the latest kernel with latest openzfs git since around kernel 4.x, currently on 5.9.11. I build inkernel as opposed to a module. There have been a couple cases where I had to wait a week or two for compatibility fixed to get merged into zfs git, but otherwise staying up to date has not been a problem.
      - OJFord 6y ago
        Yeah, too many scary notes and warnings for me. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS I would need a package that depends on zfs and provides linux-kernel at an appropriate version. Can't have something so critical break because of an upgrade, and I don't want to pin it and forget to upgrade it (also fairly anti-arch).
  - yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
    > It's still a big pain if you like to keep your kernel relatively up to date. Replacing a core system component with an out-of-repo version is always going to hurt, yes. > I switched to btrfs; it just working is worth the few extra warts over ZFS. I'm not sure I'd call "catastrophic failure and data loss" a "wart". In all my years of distro hopping, I've had 3 root filesystems become unbootable: 1 F2FS system early on, which I actually did manage to fsck out of, and 2 on an openSUSE tubleweed system using BTRFS as root.
    - scaladev 6y ago
      >and 2 on an openSUSE tubleweed system using BTRFS as root. How long ago was that? and have you been using other fully checksummed filesystems (like ZFS) on that hardware since then? I'm asking because if you're using btrfs without any raid features (or with simple RAID modes like 1/0) for the past several years and it breaks, if you dig deep enough into the problem, often the hardware is found to be at fault. And ext4 or xfs either don't find corruption at all (if it's data corruption), or have better error recovery if the FS's own metadata got trashed (which is a strong argument in favor of them, I agree, but I wouldn't trust such a filesystem anyway and would restore from backups right away). Edit: it's a strong argument for storing data on them which is checksummed by some higher component in your software stack, like the database. Otherwise, you're just asking for silent data bitrot.
      - magicalhippo 6y ago
        > if you dig deep enough into the problem, often the hardware is found to be at fault Well with ZFS I've had hardware break and still not experienced any data loss. I've had cables getting lose multiple times, I've had several disks dying[1], I've had unstable SATA controllers (hello JMicron) and plenty of unexpected power losses and hard resets. Yet ZFS has sailed through it all with my data intact. Sure ZFS ain't bulletproof. It can get messed up. But for the most part it takes a lot of beating without a dent. [1]: As a matter of fact, I just finished resilvering a RAID-Z1 pool in my NAS after a WD Red 3TB died after almost 7 years of 24/7 operation (barring a few accidental power outages).
      - 6y ago
  - teddyfrozevelt 6y ago
    Adding on, I've been using ZFS as my root partition on Arch with the latest kernel and zfs-dkms and have never had a problem.
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  It always worked, the question is how much work they have to do to work around a kernel that dislikes them.
- 3np 6y ago
  That’s Ubuntu-specific where they provide their own kernel bundled with ZFS. It was working fine before 20.04 as well in the same way it does for other distros. Has nothing to do with the comment you’re replying to.
  - boomboomsubban 6y ago
    There's not much of a difference betweens building with a kernel module or building an independent kernel module. I can't figure out what the question being asked is, but I don't see how Ubuntu would matter.

ed25519FUUU 6y ago

zfs on linux available as root partition since 20.04. Working quite well I might add!

gilrain 6y ago
It's still a big pain if you like to keep your kernel relatively up to date. I switched to btrfs; it just working is worth the few extra warts over ZFS.
- xenophonf 6y ago
  I've had zero problems with kernel updates on Ubuntu 20.04 with ZFS on a natively encrypted root. I followed the instructions in the wiki, lightly modified for my hardware and workload: https://gist.github.com/xenophonf/76fd44ae24772e457cb63d00c00a5967 https://gist.github.com/xenophonf/76fd44ae24772e457cb63d00c0... `apt-get update && apt-get dist-upgrade -y` works as expected. I plan to switch to a similar config on my Lenovo laptop when I upgrade it to the next Ubuntu LTS release.
  - accelbred 6y ago
    Ubuntu's kernel isn't exactly keeping up to date though. I assume the person you were replying to may be following mainline. As someone using new kernel version as they are released, I'm not willing to use a filesystem that may break with a kernel update. It also seems openzfs only supports up to kernel 5.6, according the the github release. I'm on 5.9, so its not even an option.
    - kitotik 6y ago
      I’ve ran the latest kernel with latest openzfs git since around kernel 4.x, currently on 5.9.11. I build inkernel as opposed to a module. There have been a couple cases where I had to wait a week or two for compatibility fixed to get merged into zfs git, but otherwise staying up to date has not been a problem.
    - OJFord 6y ago
      Yeah, too many scary notes and warnings for me. https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ZFS I would need a package that depends on zfs and provides linux-kernel at an appropriate version. Can't have something so critical break because of an upgrade, and I don't want to pin it and forget to upgrade it (also fairly anti-arch).
- yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
  > It's still a big pain if you like to keep your kernel relatively up to date. Replacing a core system component with an out-of-repo version is always going to hurt, yes. > I switched to btrfs; it just working is worth the few extra warts over ZFS. I'm not sure I'd call "catastrophic failure and data loss" a "wart". In all my years of distro hopping, I've had 3 root filesystems become unbootable: 1 F2FS system early on, which I actually did manage to fsck out of, and 2 on an openSUSE tubleweed system using BTRFS as root.
  - scaladev 6y ago
    >and 2 on an openSUSE tubleweed system using BTRFS as root. How long ago was that? and have you been using other fully checksummed filesystems (like ZFS) on that hardware since then? I'm asking because if you're using btrfs without any raid features (or with simple RAID modes like 1/0) for the past several years and it breaks, if you dig deep enough into the problem, often the hardware is found to be at fault. And ext4 or xfs either don't find corruption at all (if it's data corruption), or have better error recovery if the FS's own metadata got trashed (which is a strong argument in favor of them, I agree, but I wouldn't trust such a filesystem anyway and would restore from backups right away). Edit: it's a strong argument for storing data on them which is checksummed by some higher component in your software stack, like the database. Otherwise, you're just asking for silent data bitrot.
    - magicalhippo 6y ago
      > if you dig deep enough into the problem, often the hardware is found to be at fault Well with ZFS I've had hardware break and still not experienced any data loss. I've had cables getting lose multiple times, I've had several disks dying[1], I've had unstable SATA controllers (hello JMicron) and plenty of unexpected power losses and hard resets. Yet ZFS has sailed through it all with my data intact. Sure ZFS ain't bulletproof. It can get messed up. But for the most part it takes a lot of beating without a dent. [1]: As a matter of fact, I just finished resilvering a RAID-Z1 pool in my NAS after a WD Red 3TB died after almost 7 years of 24/7 operation (barring a few accidental power outages).
    - 6y ago
- teddyfrozevelt 6y ago
  Adding on, I've been using ZFS as my root partition on Arch with the latest kernel and zfs-dkms and have never had a problem.
yjftsjthsd-h 6y ago
It always worked, the question is how much work they have to do to work around a kernel that dislikes them.
3np 6y ago
That’s Ubuntu-specific where they provide their own kernel bundled with ZFS. It was working fine before 20.04 as well in the same way it does for other distros. Has nothing to do with the comment you’re replying to.
- boomboomsubban 6y ago
  There's not much of a difference betweens building with a kernel module or building an independent kernel module. I can't figure out what the question being asked is, but I don't see how Ubuntu would matter.