4 ms·

LVM isn't underrated, it's obsolete. ZFS in particular has none of the many, maaany problems you run into trying to make LVM work reliably in practice (no self-

LVM isn't underrated, it's obsolete. ZFS in particular has none of the many, maaany problems you run into trying to make LVM work reliably in practice (no self-corrupting snapshots, e.g.).

SoftTalker 1y ago
My personal experience is the opposite, but to be fair I gave up on ZFS years ago, it may be (probably is) better now.
QuantumGood 1y ago
I appreciate these points of view, but it is of course not optimal when you see people simply making polar opposite statements with neither making an attempt at explanation.
- creshal 1y ago
  LVM was a decent idea at the time, which was the early 1980s. But that locked in many architectural decisions that make it incredibly painful to use in practise, and its devs follow the "it was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" mentality, which make it even more painful. Self-corrupting snapshots are considered a skill issue on the user's part, e.g., while ZFS simply doesn't allow users to shoot themselves in the foot like that. (And you rarely even need block-level snapshots in the first place!) Encryption, data integrity, redundancy, are all out scope for LVM, so now you need a RAID layer and a verification layer and an encryption layer and if you stack them wrong, everything breaks. Skill issue! And not LVM's problem in the first place. ZFS doesn't make you jump through hoops to manually calculate sector offsets to figure out how you can make an SSD cache that doesn't blow up in your face either. So, no, LVM isn't underrated. It's a painful relic of a bygone age andif anything, overrated.
  - QuantumGood 1y ago
    I see you were downvoted. Interestingly, on HN downvotes are considered as appropriate as explanations, from what I've read. Sure, you should be allowed to downvote, and can't be required to explain, but in a thread about lack of explanation, downvoting without explanation is hard to understand.
MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
ZFS is great. Ensuring the next kernel update is compatible with the module is not.
- matheusmoreira 1y ago
  ZFS needs to be merged into the Linux kernel already. I can't believe the licensing nonsense is still preventing that.
  - actionfromafar 1y ago
    The copyright holders have no interest in changing the licenses. But there could be, with enough funding, a ZFS team which tracks Linux development more closely .
  - MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
    I never want to be on the wrong side of Oracle's lawyers. Larry Ellison is the closest thing we have to a real Bond villain.
- quesera 1y ago
  When I care, I run ZFS. When I run ZFS, I run BSD (or illumos).
- jcgl 1y ago
  Honest question: what’s wrong with DKMS?
  - saghm 1y ago
    I don't mind it for a lot of things, but I'm not sure how great an experience it is for something that needs to be installed as part of the initial setup of the system rather than something you can add afterwards. It works fine for stuff like a wifi or graphics driver if you're doing the initial installation without either of those, but for stuff like the filesystem that kind of has to be done up-front, it can lead to a weird bootstrapping problem where you need to have a way of getting the package before you've set up the system, but it's generally not available through the normal means that the installation media provides. You can go out of your way to obtain it elsewhere it, but that's a pretty noticeable downgrade in the experience of setting up a Linux system from what most people are used to, so I think it's understandable that the completely artificial barrier to having it available through conventional means would be frustrating for people.

LVM isn't underrated, it's obsolete. ZFS in particular has none of the many, maaany problems you run into trying to make LVM work reliably in practice (no self-corrupting snapshots, e.g.).

SoftTalker 1y ago

My personal experience is the opposite, but to be fair I gave up on ZFS years ago, it may be (probably is) better now.

QuantumGood 1y ago

I appreciate these points of view, but it is of course not optimal when you see people simply making polar opposite statements with neither making an attempt at explanation.

creshal 1y ago
LVM was a decent idea at the time, which was the early 1980s. But that locked in many architectural decisions that make it incredibly painful to use in practise, and its devs follow the "it was hard to write, so it should be hard to use" mentality, which make it even more painful. Self-corrupting snapshots are considered a skill issue on the user's part, e.g., while ZFS simply doesn't allow users to shoot themselves in the foot like that. (And you rarely even need block-level snapshots in the first place!) Encryption, data integrity, redundancy, are all out scope for LVM, so now you need a RAID layer and a verification layer and an encryption layer and if you stack them wrong, everything breaks. Skill issue! And not LVM's problem in the first place. ZFS doesn't make you jump through hoops to manually calculate sector offsets to figure out how you can make an SSD cache that doesn't blow up in your face either. So, no, LVM isn't underrated. It's a painful relic of a bygone age andif anything, overrated.
- QuantumGood 1y ago
  I see you were downvoted. Interestingly, on HN downvotes are considered as appropriate as explanations, from what I've read. Sure, you should be allowed to downvote, and can't be required to explain, but in a thread about lack of explanation, downvoting without explanation is hard to understand.

MrDrMcCoy 1y ago

ZFS is great. Ensuring the next kernel update is compatible with the module is not.

matheusmoreira 1y ago
ZFS needs to be merged into the Linux kernel already. I can't believe the licensing nonsense is still preventing that.
- actionfromafar 1y ago
  The copyright holders have no interest in changing the licenses. But there could be, with enough funding, a ZFS team which tracks Linux development more closely .
- MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
  I never want to be on the wrong side of Oracle's lawyers. Larry Ellison is the closest thing we have to a real Bond villain.
quesera 1y ago
When I care, I run ZFS. When I run ZFS, I run BSD (or illumos).
jcgl 1y ago
Honest question: what’s wrong with DKMS?
- saghm 1y ago
  I don't mind it for a lot of things, but I'm not sure how great an experience it is for something that needs to be installed as part of the initial setup of the system rather than something you can add afterwards. It works fine for stuff like a wifi or graphics driver if you're doing the initial installation without either of those, but for stuff like the filesystem that kind of has to be done up-front, it can lead to a weird bootstrapping problem where you need to have a way of getting the package before you've set up the system, but it's generally not available through the normal means that the installation media provides. You can go out of your way to obtain it elsewhere it, but that's a pretty noticeable downgrade in the experience of setting up a Linux system from what most people are used to, so I think it's understandable that the completely artificial barrier to having it available through conventional means would be frustrating for people.