5 ms·

i can't find "zfs" mentioned once in this guy's doc so my first question is... why not?

• danielparks 4y ago
  From the page: > I decided it was finally time to build a file server to centralize my files and guard them against bit-rot. Although I would have preferred to use OpenBSD due to its straightforward configuration and sane defaults, I was surprised to find that none of the typical NAS filesystems were supported. OpenBSD does not support ZFS.
  • hestefisk 4y ago
    Theo is, perhaps rightfully so, against importing what is effectively a paravirtualized Solaris kernel into the OpenBSD source code in order to run a file system.
    • nix23 4y ago
      Too sad, because the partitioning of OpenBSD is why i don't use it, with ZFS you could just do a dataset throw x^w,nosuid etc on them and give them a quota, with ffs one can bet that you run out of space (earlier or later), in one of the partitions (Workstation NOT Server).
      • hestefisk 4y ago
        You can use your own partitioning though? One for /, one for swap. Done.
        • nix23 4y ago
          Yes you can but you cant set stuff lime nosuid etc on /
      • anthk 4y ago
        I doubt it. Even for ports you can still symlink /usr/ports to $HOME/ports, for Scummvm with --enable-all-engines or Eduke32 (Build/GPLv2 license clash, can't be shared as a binary). /usr/local is not small at all by default.
        • nix23 4y ago
          • Beltalowda 4y ago
            I think they're trying to say is you can just link stuff to $HOME if some filesystem runs out of space (not an endorsement of that view, just an explanation).
          • enbian 4y ago
• ciprian_craciun 4y ago
  Because ZFS is not supported on OpenBSD. In fact he does mention in the beginning of the article that he was surprised that none of the NAS related file-systems are not supported by OpenBSD. On the other side, ZFS is an overly complicated behemoth, that wants direct access to the block device. Meanwhile `muxfs` works with any already existing file-system (local or remote) and just provides the checksums. So both serve different use-cases.
  • swinglock 4y ago
    Non ZFS filesystems are overly simplified, ignoring the problems they ought to be solving.
    • arghwhat 4y ago
      ZFS is not the simplest solution to the problems that "ought to be solved", and the implementation can be rather annoying - lacking support for hardware configuration changes, using its own cache system sidestepping the one in the kernel, and generally not fitting in with normal filesystem paradigms. And that's not even addressing that incremental sends - a huge feature - was (is?) broken due to holebirth, making it unreliable. btrfs kinda blew up, but it would be nice to have a good and simple reliable filesystem that actually fits in with the others. ZFS is what we're stuck with till then.
      • swinglock 4y ago
        Some of them are grounded in Linux politics. I have hope in bcachefs but best not rush, we've all seen btrfs.
        • arghwhat 4y ago
          ZFS was never any prettier on BSD either, so wouldn't blame Linux in that. But yes, bcachefs is somewhat interesting. Or maybe btrfs manages to clean up their act one day.
• laumars 4y ago
  Same reason he doesn’t mention BtrFS and a bunch of other file systems: Because he’s running OpenBSD which doesn’t support ZFS.