4 ms·

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

by MrDrMcCoy 1y ago

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.
  - creshal 1y ago
    Some distributions release ZFS kernel modules pinned for their kernel builds, so there's no bootstrapping problem in the first place. And the biggest issue really is that none of that would be necessary in the first place, if only btrfs or bcachefs were actually reliable.
- creshal 1y ago
  Nothing, other than FUD.
- MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
  > Honest question: what’s wrong with DKMS? Nothing is wrong with DKMS, but that's not enough. The problem is that it will often fail to build ZFS for updated kernels because the kernel changed something it uses. Sometimes that can happen within a release.
creshal 1y ago
LTS kernels solve that issue, and many, many others.
- MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
  That just delays the problem until the next version is LTS, and isn't a guarantee. I've had module build failures within releases before, and couldn't access my array. It's a very bad situation to be in, especially if your repo/cache has already removed the previous kernel and module.

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.
- creshal 1y ago
  Some distributions release ZFS kernel modules pinned for their kernel builds, so there's no bootstrapping problem in the first place. And the biggest issue really is that none of that would be necessary in the first place, if only btrfs or bcachefs were actually reliable.
creshal 1y ago
Nothing, other than FUD.
MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
> Honest question: what’s wrong with DKMS? Nothing is wrong with DKMS, but that's not enough. The problem is that it will often fail to build ZFS for updated kernels because the kernel changed something it uses. Sometimes that can happen within a release.

creshal 1y ago

LTS kernels solve that issue, and many, many others.

MrDrMcCoy 1y ago
That just delays the problem until the next version is LTS, and isn't a guarantee. I've had module build failures within releases before, and couldn't access my array. It's a very bad situation to be in, especially if your repo/cache has already removed the previous kernel and module.