5 ms·

The FreeBSD project doesn't have the manpower to maintain ZFS. So FreeBSD is now relying on zfsonlinux.org, the Linux port of ZFS. In general, FreeBSD is increa

The FreeBSD project doesn't have the manpower to maintain ZFS. So FreeBSD is now relying on zfsonlinux.org, the Linux port of ZFS. In general, FreeBSD is increasingly having to rely on ports of Linux things, or emulating Linux things, because without enough volunteers or paid professionals to write native BSD solutions that is the only way to stay in the game. (Linus, too, complains of lack of maintainers for Linux.) EDIT: Adding reference: "FreeBSD moving to ZFS-on-Linux" https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-linux.68803/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-...

nix23 5y ago
That's BS and you know it, it's OpenZFS and the code from zfsonlinux was brought in, why the hell should someone do work on a Filesystem but just for one OS?
- zfsthroway1 5y ago
  FreeBSD.org forums: "FreeBSD moving to ZFS-on-Linux" https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-linux.68803/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-...
  - nix23 5y ago
    They took the zfsonlinux-code into OpenZFS, so OpenZFS is based on the zfsonLinux features and NOT the illumos (solaris) one: https://openzfs.org/wiki/Main_Page https://openzfs.org/wiki/Main_Page >The OpenZFS project brings together developers from the Linux, FreeBSD, illumos, MacOS, and Windows platforms. OpenZFS is supported by a wide range of companies.
- mappu 5y ago
  Filesystem implementations are normally OS-specific because each kernel has different infrastructure for filesystems. e.g. Linux has the unified page cache, dentry cache etc, and ZFS just ignores all that and ships its own ARC and dnode caches, that then have to compete for shared system resources.
  - nix23 5y ago
    That's why SPL is such a nice feature, very little OS specific code. ZFS was ported in ~10 Days over to FreeBSD. And is (hopefully) in the near future THE open and "real" portable filesystem for Mac/Linux/BSD/Windows.
minimaul 5y ago
FreeBSD is a first-class citizen in the OpenZFS project. It's not a hack or compatibility layer on top of the linux codebase. It makes a great deal of sense for the Linux and FreeBSD communities to collaborate on ZFS rather than both maintaining their own separate forks and merging back and forth. It means you much more easily maintain feature & bugfix parity, and makes migrating filesystems between OSes easier. It's a win for everyone involved, not a negative.
- tutfbhuf 5y ago
  True, but Linux is also a first-class citizen in the OpenZFS project. The argument that was made earlier is that FreeBSD is so nice, because of its superior ZFS integration. This has been true for a long time and as such I agree with OP. However, since the ZFS code basis is now the same for Linux and FreeBSD (which I also agree is a good thing) I don't think we will have the same superior FreeBSD ZFS argument anymore. And people who are in favor of FreeBSD over Linux have to provide other pro arguments than ZFS in order to make a case for FreeBSD.
  - allanjude 5y ago
    Sure, the ZFS features are the same, but the integration is still not all there on Linux, and is on FreeBSD. FreeBSD has features like 'bootonce', to switch ZFS boot environments on the next boot only. Better integration with the boot loader, more boot environment tooling, and other things that can only come when the filesystem is part of the OS.
    - tutfbhuf 5y ago
      I agree there are still some FreeBSD only features for ZFS, but the gap is getting smaller and smaller. So unless you are really depended on some of those features, there is no particular reason of why to prefer FreeBSD over Linux, unlike a few years ago.
hnlmorg 5y ago
You've literally just read the headline and not the content. What's happening is that FreeBSD are now collaborating with ZoL rather than the two teams working in parallel to create the same features -- thus needlessly duplicating effort. To any sane person this news should be viewed as a victory not a loss.
- forgotpwd16 5y ago
  [W]orking through the git history of ZoL I have also discovered that many races and locking bugs have been fixed in ZoL and never made it back to Illumos and thus FreeBSD. This state of affairs has led to a general agreement among the stakeholders that I have spoken to that it makes sense to rebase FreeBSD's ZFS on ZoL. This port will provide FreeBSD users with multi modifier protection, project quotas, encrypted datasets, allocation classes, vectorized raidz, vectorized checksums, and various command line improvements. From content, parent reply is correct. ZoL was far ahead FreeBSD's native ZFS port, that FreeBSD devs found that is better using ZoL instead. Edit: Also related presentation by A. Jude at https://2019.eurobsdcon.org/slides/The%20Future%20of%20OpenZFS%20and%20FreeBSD%20-%20Allan%20Jude.pdf https://2019.eurobsdcon.org/slides/The%20Future%20of%20OpenZ...
  - hnlmorg 5y ago
    > From content, parent reply is correct. ZoL was far ahead FreeBSD's native ZFS port, that FreeBSD devs found that is better using ZoL instead. The FreeBSD fork also had a bunch of ZFS features that hadn't yet made it to ZoL as well as their own bug fixes too. I know this first hand from porting volumes between ZoL and FreeBSD. FreeBSD didn't switch their code base and dump everything they had in their own fork. They switched upstream so that everyone worked on the same common code base and merged what was practical and kept any of their own OS dependent code separate. Just as I said in my previous post and just as the presentation you linked to also confirms. And for what it's worth, it's the OS dependant stuff that makes ZFS's experience better on FreeBSD than it is on Linux. I also don't understand why so many people want to assume a negative spin on the story. Projects fork and change upstreams all the time when it's identified that there's a commonality they can share resources on. This isn't any different.

nix23 5y ago

That's BS and you know it, it's OpenZFS and the code from zfsonlinux was brought in, why the hell should someone do work on a Filesystem but just for one OS?

zfsthroway1 5y ago
FreeBSD.org forums: "FreeBSD moving to ZFS-on-Linux" https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-linux.68803/ https://forums.freebsd.org/threads/freebsd-moving-to-zfs-on-...
- nix23 5y ago
  They took the zfsonlinux-code into OpenZFS, so OpenZFS is based on the zfsonLinux features and NOT the illumos (solaris) one: https://openzfs.org/wiki/Main_Page https://openzfs.org/wiki/Main_Page >The OpenZFS project brings together developers from the Linux, FreeBSD, illumos, MacOS, and Windows platforms. OpenZFS is supported by a wide range of companies.
mappu 5y ago
Filesystem implementations are normally OS-specific because each kernel has different infrastructure for filesystems. e.g. Linux has the unified page cache, dentry cache etc, and ZFS just ignores all that and ships its own ARC and dnode caches, that then have to compete for shared system resources.
- nix23 5y ago
  That's why SPL is such a nice feature, very little OS specific code. ZFS was ported in ~10 Days over to FreeBSD. And is (hopefully) in the near future THE open and "real" portable filesystem for Mac/Linux/BSD/Windows.

minimaul 5y ago

FreeBSD is a first-class citizen in the OpenZFS project. It's not a hack or compatibility layer on top of the linux codebase. It makes a great deal of sense for the Linux and FreeBSD communities to collaborate on ZFS rather than both maintaining their own separate forks and merging back and forth. It means you much more easily maintain feature & bugfix parity, and makes migrating filesystems between OSes easier. It's a win for everyone involved, not a negative.

tutfbhuf 5y ago
True, but Linux is also a first-class citizen in the OpenZFS project. The argument that was made earlier is that FreeBSD is so nice, because of its superior ZFS integration. This has been true for a long time and as such I agree with OP. However, since the ZFS code basis is now the same for Linux and FreeBSD (which I also agree is a good thing) I don't think we will have the same superior FreeBSD ZFS argument anymore. And people who are in favor of FreeBSD over Linux have to provide other pro arguments than ZFS in order to make a case for FreeBSD.
- allanjude 5y ago
  Sure, the ZFS features are the same, but the integration is still not all there on Linux, and is on FreeBSD. FreeBSD has features like 'bootonce', to switch ZFS boot environments on the next boot only. Better integration with the boot loader, more boot environment tooling, and other things that can only come when the filesystem is part of the OS.
  - tutfbhuf 5y ago
    I agree there are still some FreeBSD only features for ZFS, but the gap is getting smaller and smaller. So unless you are really depended on some of those features, there is no particular reason of why to prefer FreeBSD over Linux, unlike a few years ago.

hnlmorg 5y ago

You've literally just read the headline and not the content. What's happening is that FreeBSD are now collaborating with ZoL rather than the two teams working in parallel to create the same features -- thus needlessly duplicating effort. To any sane person this news should be viewed as a victory not a loss.

forgotpwd16 5y ago
[W]orking through the git history of ZoL I have also discovered that many races and locking bugs have been fixed in ZoL and never made it back to Illumos and thus FreeBSD. This state of affairs has led to a general agreement among the stakeholders that I have spoken to that it makes sense to rebase FreeBSD's ZFS on ZoL. This port will provide FreeBSD users with multi modifier protection, project quotas, encrypted datasets, allocation classes, vectorized raidz, vectorized checksums, and various command line improvements. From content, parent reply is correct. ZoL was far ahead FreeBSD's native ZFS port, that FreeBSD devs found that is better using ZoL instead. Edit: Also related presentation by A. Jude at https://2019.eurobsdcon.org/slides/The%20Future%20of%20OpenZFS%20and%20FreeBSD%20-%20Allan%20Jude.pdf https://2019.eurobsdcon.org/slides/The%20Future%20of%20OpenZ...
- hnlmorg 5y ago
  > From content, parent reply is correct. ZoL was far ahead FreeBSD's native ZFS port, that FreeBSD devs found that is better using ZoL instead. The FreeBSD fork also had a bunch of ZFS features that hadn't yet made it to ZoL as well as their own bug fixes too. I know this first hand from porting volumes between ZoL and FreeBSD. FreeBSD didn't switch their code base and dump everything they had in their own fork. They switched upstream so that everyone worked on the same common code base and merged what was practical and kept any of their own OS dependent code separate. Just as I said in my previous post and just as the presentation you linked to also confirms. And for what it's worth, it's the OS dependant stuff that makes ZFS's experience better on FreeBSD than it is on Linux. I also don't understand why so many people want to assume a negative spin on the story. Projects fork and change upstreams all the time when it's identified that there's a commonality they can share resources on. This isn't any different.