6 ms·

Nice lots of good features! Seems like cache hard disk on ssd, filesystem snapshots. Lopks like it can replace/complement ZFS, Btrfs

by acd 4y ago

viraptor 4y ago
Probably won't replace zfs, but if the recovery / failure handling story is better than btrfs, maybe we'll see that one replaced. They're going to be fairly similar in features and concepts.
- supern00b 4y ago
  why do you think that it won't replace zfs? it has all the features that zfs have
  - viraptor 4y ago
    If it just has all the features zfs has and none of the years of stability that zfs has... why would any current user (who is by definition ok with the licence) take the effort to switch? What's the extra benefit that zfs currently doesn't provide?
    - wokkel 4y ago
      Memory usage: zfs is still not neatly integrated and requires a big chunk of memory to operate efficiently.
      - MailNerd 4y ago
        Big chunk of memory - that's not the case except if you are using deduplication. I have it running fine on a 4GB machine (10TB mirrored volume) without any issues.
        viraptor 4y ago
        What I believe gp was referring to was that zfs uses different caching system that the main system. Specifically arc vs page cache do almost the same job, but are separate and may fight for resources. Discussed in a few places, but here's an example with some behaviour summary https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/o8xqzb/zfs_on_linux_can_page_cache_demand_cause_arc/ https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/o8xqzb/zfs_on_linux_ca...
    - cesarb 4y ago
      Just being in the mainstream kernel, instead of an out-of-tree module, already gives a couple of benefits. The code will always be kept up-to-date with the internal kernel API, so you won't have a situation where the kernel is updated but the out-of-tree module fails to compile due to an API change. And if you're running a signed kernel (for SecureBoot), you don't need to have a complex setup to add an extra key and sign the module whenever it's rebuilt. Also, as others have mentioned, being in-tree means it's better integrated with the rest of the kernel; this includes making changes to core kernel code when they could help the module.
    - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
      > What's the extra benefit that zfs currently doesn't provide? Not being at the mercy of a company like Oracle is a huge plus in many ways. A huge plus for future development and risk-free adoption. I use ZFS on a server of mine, but I am one of those paranoid people that would switch just to get away from a project that could be hamstringed at any moment if Oracle has one of its episodes again. ZFS (hopefully) never finding its way into the mainline kernel is kind of a meta-disadvantage.
      - cyphar 4y ago
        OpenZFS is the primary place where ZFS development happens and it's not managed by Oracle.
        2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
        Yes that I am aware of, my fear is Oracle going on a legal rampage, not direct mismanagement.
        mekster 4y ago
        What are they going to do about it? They can't just relicense OpenZFS. The only attack vector is suing Ubuntu for distributing zfs because Canonical's lawyers think that's fine but even then, you're still free to use it by adding it to the system yourself like any other distribution is doing. Running a new filesystem is far more dangerous than your theoretical legal concerns.
        viraptor 4y ago
        They can go after end users if they manage to find a business angle where they can start charging for the system. "But that's silly, Oracle wouldn't be bothered by small businesses, right?" https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/d1ttzp/oracle_is_going_after_companies_using_virtualbox/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/d1ttzp/oracle_is_...
        4y ago
  - kzrdude 4y ago
    Because right now it "has no features" because it's not really widely available. No installation, no features. The proof of the pudding is in the actual shipping and installing and using it. :)
nwmcsween 4y ago
ZFS would probably take ages to merge unless there is a simple mapping of spl -> native Linux interfaces.

Nice lots of good features! Seems like cache hard disk on ssd, filesystem snapshots. Lopks like it can replace/complement ZFS, Btrfs

by acd 4y ago

Nice lots of good features! Seems like cache hard disk on ssd, filesystem snapshots. Lopks like it can replace/complement ZFS, Btrfs

viraptor 4y ago

Probably won't replace zfs, but if the recovery / failure handling story is better than btrfs, maybe we'll see that one replaced. They're going to be fairly similar in features and concepts.

supern00b 4y ago
why do you think that it won't replace zfs? it has all the features that zfs have
- viraptor 4y ago
  If it just has all the features zfs has and none of the years of stability that zfs has... why would any current user (who is by definition ok with the licence) take the effort to switch? What's the extra benefit that zfs currently doesn't provide?
  - wokkel 4y ago
    Memory usage: zfs is still not neatly integrated and requires a big chunk of memory to operate efficiently.
    - MailNerd 4y ago
      Big chunk of memory - that's not the case except if you are using deduplication. I have it running fine on a 4GB machine (10TB mirrored volume) without any issues.
      - viraptor 4y ago
        What I believe gp was referring to was that zfs uses different caching system that the main system. Specifically arc vs page cache do almost the same job, but are separate and may fight for resources. Discussed in a few places, but here's an example with some behaviour summary https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/o8xqzb/zfs_on_linux_can_page_cache_demand_cause_arc/ https://www.reddit.com/r/zfs/comments/o8xqzb/zfs_on_linux_ca...
  - cesarb 4y ago
    Just being in the mainstream kernel, instead of an out-of-tree module, already gives a couple of benefits. The code will always be kept up-to-date with the internal kernel API, so you won't have a situation where the kernel is updated but the out-of-tree module fails to compile due to an API change. And if you're running a signed kernel (for SecureBoot), you don't need to have a complex setup to add an extra key and sign the module whenever it's rebuilt. Also, as others have mentioned, being in-tree means it's better integrated with the rest of the kernel; this includes making changes to core kernel code when they could help the module.
  - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
    > What's the extra benefit that zfs currently doesn't provide? Not being at the mercy of a company like Oracle is a huge plus in many ways. A huge plus for future development and risk-free adoption. I use ZFS on a server of mine, but I am one of those paranoid people that would switch just to get away from a project that could be hamstringed at any moment if Oracle has one of its episodes again. ZFS (hopefully) never finding its way into the mainline kernel is kind of a meta-disadvantage.
    - cyphar 4y ago
      OpenZFS is the primary place where ZFS development happens and it's not managed by Oracle.
      - 2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
        Yes that I am aware of, my fear is Oracle going on a legal rampage, not direct mismanagement.
        mekster 4y ago
        What are they going to do about it? They can't just relicense OpenZFS. The only attack vector is suing Ubuntu for distributing zfs because Canonical's lawyers think that's fine but even then, you're still free to use it by adding it to the system yourself like any other distribution is doing. Running a new filesystem is far more dangerous than your theoretical legal concerns.
        viraptor 4y ago
        They can go after end users if they manage to find a business angle where they can start charging for the system. "But that's silly, Oracle wouldn't be bothered by small businesses, right?" https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/d1ttzp/oracle_is_going_after_companies_using_virtualbox/ https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/d1ttzp/oracle_is_...
        4y ago
- kzrdude 4y ago
  Because right now it "has no features" because it's not really widely available. No installation, no features. The proof of the pudding is in the actual shipping and installing and using it. :)

nwmcsween 4y ago

ZFS would probably take ages to merge unless there is a simple mapping of spl -> native Linux interfaces.