4 ms·

These sorts of events are why I know quite a number of people who do ZFS-for-everything on their FreeBSD systems but ZFS-for-everything-except-root on their Lin

by mst 4y ago

These sorts of events are why I know quite a number of people who do ZFS-for-everything on their FreeBSD systems but ZFS-for-everything-except-root on their Linux boxen. Seems like in a lot of cases having all of your data on ZFS gets you almost all of the awesomeness of having ZFS around with fairly minimal downsides. (deciding if this is true for any particular system is left as an exercise to the person designing the deployment)

mustache_kimono 4y ago
This is somewhat understandable. But to be clear, this is also an extraordinary set of circumstances -- a very recent, but marked stable kernel, on rolling release distro, with a back ported set of changes, breaking a dkms ZFS build. The user was notified and was able to take remedial action. My only issue would have been -- I'm not sure Arch made this very easy. FWIW I use Ubuntu LTS and ZFS on root works great. IMHO every distro should just ship ZFS. Ubuntu has proven this is just not a practical difficulty anymore. Let's quit the charade of making users compile their own kernel modules for each kernel release.
- mhio 4y ago
  It's not a charade, it's the looming shadow of Oracle lawyers.
  - mustache_kimono 4y ago
    Who I'd note haven't done anything so far? This is what is so mysterious to me -- if this is the blockbuster case some on Reddit have made it out to be, why hasn't there been a suit against Canonical?
    - mhio 4y ago
      Does the "blockbuster case" line of thought you've seen suggest it should be easy for Oracle? From the differing legal opinions I've read it seems a legal quagmire. That's a quagmire that _both_ sides of the argument have to wade in to, just Oracle gets to choose if and when that happens. They might just be a bit gun shy after their last 10 year long open source case.
- mst 4y ago
  Oddities have been seen on other distros, and if it's a server, trying to deal with it remotely has additional challenges. Ubuntu seems to be doing reasonably well at not shipping ZFS related oddities so far, but not everybody runs Ubuntu.

by mst 4y ago

mustache_kimono 4y ago

This is somewhat understandable. But to be clear, this is also an extraordinary set of circumstances -- a very recent, but marked stable kernel, on rolling release distro, with a back ported set of changes, breaking a dkms ZFS build. The user was notified and was able to take remedial action. My only issue would have been -- I'm not sure Arch made this very easy. FWIW I use Ubuntu LTS and ZFS on root works great. IMHO every distro should just ship ZFS. Ubuntu has proven this is just not a practical difficulty anymore. Let's quit the charade of making users compile their own kernel modules for each kernel release.

mhio 4y ago
It's not a charade, it's the looming shadow of Oracle lawyers.
- mustache_kimono 4y ago
  Who I'd note haven't done anything so far? This is what is so mysterious to me -- if this is the blockbuster case some on Reddit have made it out to be, why hasn't there been a suit against Canonical?
  - mhio 4y ago
    Does the "blockbuster case" line of thought you've seen suggest it should be easy for Oracle? From the differing legal opinions I've read it seems a legal quagmire. That's a quagmire that _both_ sides of the argument have to wade in to, just Oracle gets to choose if and when that happens. They might just be a bit gun shy after their last 10 year long open source case.
mst 4y ago
Oddities have been seen on other distros, and if it's a server, trying to deal with it remotely has additional challenges. Ubuntu seems to be doing reasonably well at not shipping ZFS related oddities so far, but not everybody runs Ubuntu.