3 ms·
Uh you are mixing sensible suggestions (ashift=12 as a default, {pool}:{dataset} syntax, though it will be hard to change so late) with very, very opinionated o
by gruturo 3y ago
Uh you are mixing sensible suggestions (ashift=12 as a default, {pool}:{dataset} syntax, though it will be hard to change so late) with very, very opinionated ones, which break use cases you may not be aware of.
Naming pools after hostnames: I have pools on a SAN which can be imported by more than one host.
Weekly scrubs, periodic snapshots, periodic pruning: This is really the job of the OS' scheduler (an equally opinionated view, I admit)
collapsing zpool and zfs commands - sure but why? so you can have zfs -pool XXXX and zfs -volume XXXX?
No recursive datasets? I have use cases where it's very useful.
`zfs list` should show if a dataset is mounted or not, if it is encrypted or not, and if the encryption key is loaded or not: Fully agree!
Don't make me type disk IDs when creating pools: You can address them in 3-4 different ways (by id, by WWN, by label, by sdX etc), and you have to specify in _some_ way which disks you want to go there, so not sure what's the point here.
Store metadata on the disk so ZFS doesn't get confused if I set up a pool with `/dev/sda` and `/dev/sdb` references and then shuffle around the drives: Already happening. Swap a few drives around and import the pool, it will find them.
Some of your suggestions are genuinely OK, at least as defaults, but some indicate you aren't really considering much outside your own usage pattern and needs. ZFS caters to a lot more people than you.
- istjohn 3y agoI'm not suggesting zfs itself change. I'd like a porcelain for people with very simple needs where zfs is almost overkill, for people who just want better data integrity and quicker backups on their main machine, for example. I think zpool is unnecessary as an additional command. For example, `zfs scrub`, `zfs destroy [pool | dataset]`, `zfs add`, `zfs remove` would all have clear meanings. There may be a couple commands that would need explicit disambiguation with a flag like `zfs create`.
- gruturo 3y agoI missed completely that you were discussing just a wrapper and not touching the original ZFS. Completely my bad! Obviously some of my objections become quite moot in that light.
- simondotau 3y ago> ZFS caters to a lot more people than you. And under the OP's proposal, those people would continue to ZFS entirely unaffected. The OP wasn't proposing changing the behaviour of ZFS, but rather "wrapping" this defined set into a well-defined recipe which could be used by people who aren't so opinionated. This "dumbed down wrapper" wouldn't even need to be called ZFS, to avoid confusion. Personally I'd like to propose the name ZzzFS: which is ZFS made so simple you can do it in your sleep...