10 ms·

ZFS 2.1.6

176 points by lysp 4y ago

rjzzleep 4y ago
Can someone explain what the relationship between openzfs and the zfs in opensolaris is? Are changes to openzfs backported to zfs in illumos or have they completely diverged? I think one thing that broke opensolaris' neck is, is how hard it is to set up a development environment compared to just building the linux kernel.
- ghoward 4y ago
  IIRC, OpenZFS is the ZFS in Illumos. It's just not the ZFS in Oracle's Solaris. OpenZFS was created as a way to combine development of all the versions of ZFS across Linux, FreeBSD, Illumos, and others. If you're using a (fairly) recent Illumos, you're using OpenZFS. Disclaimer: Not an OpenZFS developer; just a happy user.
  - spijdar 4y ago
    Not exactly, take a look at the list of supported platforms in the releases notes of TFA -- OpenZFS 2 as a unified codebase is currently only ported to Linux and FreeBSD. Illumos is still using the older ZFS code with fewer features. The whole history is pretty convoluted, since I'm fairly certain "OpenZFS" has been used to refer to several completely different source trees, with the Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, NetBSD, and Windows ports of ZFS all being separate forks off of the ZFS code from early OpenSolaris releases. Despite the licensing drama and general distaste most distros and Linus have/had for ZoL, the Linux port had sort of become the de facto "standard" for ZFS development, with more work being done on that version of the source tree. I only followed the "drama" from a distance, don't use ZFS or FreeBSD very frequently, but I know there was an internal discussion a while back within FreeBSD where they decided to pull commits directly from the ZoL tree instead of Illumos, because that tree was more active, and otherwise they had to wait on any improvements from Linux to be merged to the upstream Illumos tree. The elephant in the room was the lack of activity in Illumos and the gradual decline of industry sponsors and development over the years. I don't know what the current state is, and I'm not saying Illumos is "dead", but it's definitely a shadow of its prime back when Joyent and a lot of companies were really pushing and developing on it. Several big names dropped out of Illumos development, including some NAS companies IIRC. Anyway, OpenZFS 2, AFAIK, is essentially a rebranding of ZFS on Linux, but with CI/CD pipelines testing every commit against FreeBSD as well, basically unifying the work for Linux + FreeBSD. The other versions (Mac, NetBSD, Windows, others?) still use separate forks AFAIK.
    - ghoward 4y ago
      I stand corrected.
      - spijdar 4y ago
        It's very convoluted, and I probably got some details wrong, but that's the gist of what GP was probably thinking about. Not sure what the Illumos guys ended up doing in response, either. My memory from browsing their mailing lists was they were pretty surprised by FreeBSD's decision, and didn't seem particularly happy about it, since Illumos/OpenSolaris is the "proper home" of ZFS, but...
    - Conan_Kudo 4y ago
      > Despite the licensing drama and general distaste most distros and Linus have/had for ZoL, the Linux port had sort of become the de facto "standard" for ZFS development, with more work being done on that version of the source tree. This actually happened because of one feature: ZFS encryption. That feature was developed for ZoL first, and had to be ported to other platforms. The developer of the feature for ZoL did not want to write it for Illumos first and port it to Linux later. The consequence of that is that the Linux port got its first significant feature the others didn't have, and there was no real assistance to bring it into the other platforms quickly. That led to a bit of a political mess where the fallout was the "new" OpenZFS codebase where Linux and FreeBSD are maintained in one tree. Source: I observed the whole thing while working at the place that wrote ZFS encryption for ZoL.
    - philkrylov 4y ago
      openzfsonosx is a ZoL/OpenZFS2 fork. NetBSD ZFS is a fork of FreeBSD 10 ZFS.
- nix23 4y ago
  If you have a bit of time, it's about OpenZFS and it's history, zfs-version vs. feature-tags etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmaHZBwDKho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmaHZBwDKho
neilpanchal 4y ago
I build a zfs based NAS last year[1], after 10 months of usage, I have nothing but positive things to say. One thing I didn't understand conceptually at first is that ZFS is standalone and not dependent on the host OS. This was not clear to me and it is not explained anywhere. You can wipe out the entire OS, move the drives to a new system, mount them on a new OS and run `zpool import` to import them. All the information (raid config, snapshots, etc) about ZFS is stored on the pool itself and not on the host OS, especially if you have an alias setup for invidivual drives in `/etc/zfs/vdev_id.conf`. There is no need for FreeNAS or any of that stuff, I don't use all those features. Just run like 3 commands to create a zpool, install samba service and that's all I need from a NAS. Cron job to run a scrub every month. If ZFS file system made a sound, it'd make a satisfying and reassuring "CLUNK!" sound. [1] https://neil.computer/notes/zfs-raidz2/ https://neil.computer/notes/zfs-raidz2/
- aborsy 4y ago
  TrueNAS ensures that different versions of different software fit together. So you update your OS, and your setup doesn’t break. The common tasks are made easy: snapshot scheduling, snapshot replication, Samba share with a few clicks, backup to cloud, users management, one click install of applications, SMART tests, etc. Config management can be a headache.
  - neilpanchal 4y ago
    I use zfs-auto-snapshot for snapshots, it works great. I think the only thing I would want is early warning for a disk failure. I'll probably automate that. TrueNAS feels extremely heavy with too many features I don't need. There is a web server, database, etc which feels overkill for a simple home NAS IMO and having to manage the management system.
    - mustache_kimono 4y ago
      > I think the only thing I would want is early warning for a disk failure. https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/man8/zed.8.html https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/man8/zed.8.html
waynesonfire 4y ago
Anyone know if there is a way to install this on a Ubuntu 16.04 system? Would like to update from 0.8.4-1 but jonathonf hasn't build anything newer for this version of Ubuntu.
- SkyMarshal 4y ago
  You can install the Nix package manager on other Linuxes (or Mac) and use it to manage some packages. It keeps ZFS up to date and that may be an option for installing it on Ubuntu. I’ve never done this before so not sure, ask in the Nix community to verify.
  - remexre 4y ago
    I would suspect Nix wouldn't be the optimal way to manage Ubuntu kernel modules; I suppose you could use it to build them, but I don't think Nix without NixOS will e.g. configure DKMS for you.
  - ratorx 4y ago
    This isn’t a good idea. ZFS needs to be kept in sync with the kernel version. If you use Nix on Ubuntu, Ubuntu manages the kernel, so Nix can’t do anything. ZFS on NixOS is pretty neat though. The exact version pinning means that ZFS and the kernel can be updated together and only once both packages build at a new version. There’s also an open issue for more extensive checks, so hopefully eventually NixOS CI will be able to check not just that the ZFS and kernel are compatible (header-wise), but actually go through the motion of creating test ZFS dataset and make sure it actually works.
    - SkyMarshal 4y ago
      Yeah makes sense. I use ZFS on NixOS and it mostly just works. Sometimes there's a lag of a few weeks between when the kernel gets a minor update but ZFS isn't yet updated to match, and rebuilding NixOS will fail during that time. Not a showstopper, just a temporary annoyance, but it sounds like that CI pull request will fix this.
gigatexal 4y ago
supports kernels up to 5.19 but 6.0 and 6.1 are on the horizon :(
- boomboomsubban 4y ago
  There are always kernel releases on the horizon, my experience has seen ZoL supporting them pretty quickly.
- thulle 4y ago
  There was some discussion about waiting for 6.0 in the pull request for 2.1.6, but they chose to ship this and instantly open a branch for 2.1.7 pull requests. https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13886 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13886
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  This concern doesn't make any sense. There are always new kernels on the horizon bydl definition, and there's nothing special about 6.0 at all. By this logic nothing should ever be released as it should always be waiting for the "on the horizon" kernel.
Octabrain 4y ago
Anyone using ZFS on a daily-driver desktop computer? Fedora + BTRFS + Deja dup daily backups have been my default for months now, but I am tempted to give it a go to perhaps Ubuntu JJ + ZFS + Deja dup. Not that I have any issues with my current setup. It's just for the sake of, you know, try new things.
- gnfargbl 4y ago
  I have been using ZFS on my daily-driver Ubuntu laptop for six months or so. Also been using ZFS as the backing store for a heavy update postgres database for a few years before that. Haven't had any issues with it at all, generally it seems like a very solid bit of software. I'm not familiar with Deja dup, but the usual method of backing up a ZFS filesystem is to snapshot it and then stream the snapshot (just a file, can be compressed) into the remote store of your choice.
  - Octabrain 4y ago
    Thank you for answering! Deja dup it's just a GUI over duplicity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicity_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicity_(software)). It allows me to have encryption, differential backups and restoring files in a granular way (even from Gnome context menu) with no effort. Very pleasant experience similar to Time machine in MacOS. Anyways, I'll definitely give it a go to ZFS.
    - bo0tzz 4y ago
      ZFS can do all those same things!
      - Octabrain 4y ago
        I'll give it a go for sure. It's gonna be an exciting evening!
  - aborsy 4y ago
    Streaming ZFS snapshots to a file and storing that in a remote of your choice is not the usual way of backing up ZFS data at all (it’s actually recommended against). The usual way is ZFS send and receive to another ZFS server. But almost no cloud storage provider supports that, other than rsync.net (and zfs.rent), which starts with $60/month. So you have to set up and manage another ZFS server with secure remote access, PIA if you ask me.
aflag 4y ago
I've been enjoying my experience with zfs this far. I just wish removal of vdevs was a thing for raidz setups. I could never fully understand why removing a full vdev that happens to implement raidz isn't as easy as removing a mirror one (which is supported). I suppose vdevs don't fully abstract the away the underlying mechanism.

176 points by lysp 4y ago

Can someone explain what the relationship between openzfs and the zfs in opensolaris is? Are changes to openzfs backported to zfs in illumos or have they completely diverged? I think one thing that broke opensolaris' neck is, is how hard it is to set up a development environment compared to just building the linux kernel.

ghoward 4y ago
IIRC, OpenZFS is the ZFS in Illumos. It's just not the ZFS in Oracle's Solaris. OpenZFS was created as a way to combine development of all the versions of ZFS across Linux, FreeBSD, Illumos, and others. If you're using a (fairly) recent Illumos, you're using OpenZFS. Disclaimer: Not an OpenZFS developer; just a happy user.
- spijdar 4y ago
  Not exactly, take a look at the list of supported platforms in the releases notes of TFA -- OpenZFS 2 as a unified codebase is currently only ported to Linux and FreeBSD. Illumos is still using the older ZFS code with fewer features. The whole history is pretty convoluted, since I'm fairly certain "OpenZFS" has been used to refer to several completely different source trees, with the Linux, FreeBSD, OS X, NetBSD, and Windows ports of ZFS all being separate forks off of the ZFS code from early OpenSolaris releases. Despite the licensing drama and general distaste most distros and Linus have/had for ZoL, the Linux port had sort of become the de facto "standard" for ZFS development, with more work being done on that version of the source tree. I only followed the "drama" from a distance, don't use ZFS or FreeBSD very frequently, but I know there was an internal discussion a while back within FreeBSD where they decided to pull commits directly from the ZoL tree instead of Illumos, because that tree was more active, and otherwise they had to wait on any improvements from Linux to be merged to the upstream Illumos tree. The elephant in the room was the lack of activity in Illumos and the gradual decline of industry sponsors and development over the years. I don't know what the current state is, and I'm not saying Illumos is "dead", but it's definitely a shadow of its prime back when Joyent and a lot of companies were really pushing and developing on it. Several big names dropped out of Illumos development, including some NAS companies IIRC. Anyway, OpenZFS 2, AFAIK, is essentially a rebranding of ZFS on Linux, but with CI/CD pipelines testing every commit against FreeBSD as well, basically unifying the work for Linux + FreeBSD. The other versions (Mac, NetBSD, Windows, others?) still use separate forks AFAIK.
  - ghoward 4y ago
    I stand corrected.
    - spijdar 4y ago
      It's very convoluted, and I probably got some details wrong, but that's the gist of what GP was probably thinking about. Not sure what the Illumos guys ended up doing in response, either. My memory from browsing their mailing lists was they were pretty surprised by FreeBSD's decision, and didn't seem particularly happy about it, since Illumos/OpenSolaris is the "proper home" of ZFS, but...
  - Conan_Kudo 4y ago
    > Despite the licensing drama and general distaste most distros and Linus have/had for ZoL, the Linux port had sort of become the de facto "standard" for ZFS development, with more work being done on that version of the source tree. This actually happened because of one feature: ZFS encryption. That feature was developed for ZoL first, and had to be ported to other platforms. The developer of the feature for ZoL did not want to write it for Illumos first and port it to Linux later. The consequence of that is that the Linux port got its first significant feature the others didn't have, and there was no real assistance to bring it into the other platforms quickly. That led to a bit of a political mess where the fallout was the "new" OpenZFS codebase where Linux and FreeBSD are maintained in one tree. Source: I observed the whole thing while working at the place that wrote ZFS encryption for ZoL.
  - philkrylov 4y ago
    openzfsonosx is a ZoL/OpenZFS2 fork. NetBSD ZFS is a fork of FreeBSD 10 ZFS.
nix23 4y ago
If you have a bit of time, it's about OpenZFS and it's history, zfs-version vs. feature-tags etc. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmaHZBwDKho https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmaHZBwDKho

neilpanchal 4y ago

I build a zfs based NAS last year[1], after 10 months of usage, I have nothing but positive things to say. One thing I didn't understand conceptually at first is that ZFS is standalone and not dependent on the host OS. This was not clear to me and it is not explained anywhere. You can wipe out the entire OS, move the drives to a new system, mount them on a new OS and run `zpool import` to import them. All the information (raid config, snapshots, etc) about ZFS is stored on the pool itself and not on the host OS, especially if you have an alias setup for invidivual drives in `/etc/zfs/vdev_id.conf`. There is no need for FreeNAS or any of that stuff, I don't use all those features. Just run like 3 commands to create a zpool, install samba service and that's all I need from a NAS. Cron job to run a scrub every month. If ZFS file system made a sound, it'd make a satisfying and reassuring "CLUNK!" sound. [1] https://neil.computer/notes/zfs-raidz2/ https://neil.computer/notes/zfs-raidz2/

aborsy 4y ago
TrueNAS ensures that different versions of different software fit together. So you update your OS, and your setup doesn’t break. The common tasks are made easy: snapshot scheduling, snapshot replication, Samba share with a few clicks, backup to cloud, users management, one click install of applications, SMART tests, etc. Config management can be a headache.
- neilpanchal 4y ago
  I use zfs-auto-snapshot for snapshots, it works great. I think the only thing I would want is early warning for a disk failure. I'll probably automate that. TrueNAS feels extremely heavy with too many features I don't need. There is a web server, database, etc which feels overkill for a simple home NAS IMO and having to manage the management system.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    > I think the only thing I would want is early warning for a disk failure. https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/man8/zed.8.html https://manpages.ubuntu.com/manpages/jammy/man8/zed.8.html

waynesonfire 4y ago

Anyone know if there is a way to install this on a Ubuntu 16.04 system? Would like to update from 0.8.4-1 but jonathonf hasn't build anything newer for this version of Ubuntu.

SkyMarshal 4y ago
You can install the Nix package manager on other Linuxes (or Mac) and use it to manage some packages. It keeps ZFS up to date and that may be an option for installing it on Ubuntu. I’ve never done this before so not sure, ask in the Nix community to verify.
- remexre 4y ago
  I would suspect Nix wouldn't be the optimal way to manage Ubuntu kernel modules; I suppose you could use it to build them, but I don't think Nix without NixOS will e.g. configure DKMS for you.
- ratorx 4y ago
  This isn’t a good idea. ZFS needs to be kept in sync with the kernel version. If you use Nix on Ubuntu, Ubuntu manages the kernel, so Nix can’t do anything. ZFS on NixOS is pretty neat though. The exact version pinning means that ZFS and the kernel can be updated together and only once both packages build at a new version. There’s also an open issue for more extensive checks, so hopefully eventually NixOS CI will be able to check not just that the ZFS and kernel are compatible (header-wise), but actually go through the motion of creating test ZFS dataset and make sure it actually works.
  - SkyMarshal 4y ago
    Yeah makes sense. I use ZFS on NixOS and it mostly just works. Sometimes there's a lag of a few weeks between when the kernel gets a minor update but ZFS isn't yet updated to match, and rebuilding NixOS will fail during that time. Not a showstopper, just a temporary annoyance, but it sounds like that CI pull request will fix this.

gigatexal 4y ago

supports kernels up to 5.19 but 6.0 and 6.1 are on the horizon :(

boomboomsubban 4y ago
There are always kernel releases on the horizon, my experience has seen ZoL supporting them pretty quickly.
thulle 4y ago
There was some discussion about waiting for 6.0 in the pull request for 2.1.6, but they chose to ship this and instantly open a branch for 2.1.7 pull requests. https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13886 https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/13886
puffoflogic 4y ago
This concern doesn't make any sense. There are always new kernels on the horizon bydl definition, and there's nothing special about 6.0 at all. By this logic nothing should ever be released as it should always be waiting for the "on the horizon" kernel.

Octabrain 4y ago

Anyone using ZFS on a daily-driver desktop computer? Fedora + BTRFS + Deja dup daily backups have been my default for months now, but I am tempted to give it a go to perhaps Ubuntu JJ + ZFS + Deja dup. Not that I have any issues with my current setup. It's just for the sake of, you know, try new things.

gnfargbl 4y ago
I have been using ZFS on my daily-driver Ubuntu laptop for six months or so. Also been using ZFS as the backing store for a heavy update postgres database for a few years before that. Haven't had any issues with it at all, generally it seems like a very solid bit of software. I'm not familiar with Deja dup, but the usual method of backing up a ZFS filesystem is to snapshot it and then stream the snapshot (just a file, can be compressed) into the remote store of your choice.
- Octabrain 4y ago
  Thank you for answering! Deja dup it's just a GUI over duplicity (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicity_(software) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duplicity_(software)). It allows me to have encryption, differential backups and restoring files in a granular way (even from Gnome context menu) with no effort. Very pleasant experience similar to Time machine in MacOS. Anyways, I'll definitely give it a go to ZFS.
  - bo0tzz 4y ago
    ZFS can do all those same things!
    - Octabrain 4y ago
      I'll give it a go for sure. It's gonna be an exciting evening!
- aborsy 4y ago
  Streaming ZFS snapshots to a file and storing that in a remote of your choice is not the usual way of backing up ZFS data at all (it’s actually recommended against). The usual way is ZFS send and receive to another ZFS server. But almost no cloud storage provider supports that, other than rsync.net (and zfs.rent), which starts with $60/month. So you have to set up and manage another ZFS server with secure remote access, PIA if you ask me.

aflag 4y ago

I've been enjoying my experience with zfs this far. I just wish removal of vdevs was a thing for raidz setups. I could never fully understand why removing a full vdev that happens to implement raidz isn't as easy as removing a mirror one (which is supported). I suppose vdevs don't fully abstract the away the underlying mechanism.