Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #683636 > unrolled thread

Anyone Using OpenZFS?

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy

Contents

  Anyone Using OpenZFS? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-10 19:48 +0000
    Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-01-10 15:12 -0500
      Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-10 20:25 +0000
        Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> - 2025-01-10 15:37 -0500
          Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-10 21:00 +0000
            Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? "186282@ud0s4.net" <186283@ud0s4.net> - 2025-01-11 00:30 -0500
              Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-11 12:31 +0000
                Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? CrudeSausage <crude@sausa.ge> - 2025-01-11 07:45 -0500
                  Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-11 12:58 +0000
                    Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-11 13:49 +0000
                      Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> - 2025-01-11 15:49 +0000
                        Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 12:27 -0600
                    Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Physfitfreak <physfitfreak@gmail.com> - 2025-01-11 12:24 -0600
            Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? DFS <guhnoo-basher@linux.advocaca> - 2025-01-11 16:44 -0500
      Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-10 22:15 +0000
      Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Stéphane CARPENTIER <sc@fiat-linux.fr> - 2025-01-11 12:23 +0000
    Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Grant Taylor <gtaylor@tnetconsulting.net> - 2025-01-10 17:55 -0600
      Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> - 2025-01-11 02:30 +0000
    Re: Anyone Using OpenZFS? Lem Novantotto <Lem@none.invalid> - 2025-01-12 00:25 +0000

#683636 — Anyone Using OpenZFS?

I hear a lot about the virtues of OpenZFS, which is available
for GNU/Linux albeit, due to license concerns, only in a roundabout
way.  A separate external module must be compiled and then added
to the kernel.

Since my programming predilection is HPC/scientific/engineering,
I know little about disk I/O concepts.  So answer these questions
if you are able.

Is OpenZFS suitable/recommended for a desktop workstation?

What are the benefits of OpenZFS compared to EXT4?

Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?

I will appreciate all responses.


-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [next] | [standalone]

#683643

On 1/10/25 2:48 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> I hear a lot about the virtues of OpenZFS, which is available
> for GNU/Linux albeit, due to license concerns, only in a roundabout
> way.  A separate external module must be compiled and then added
> to the kernel.
> 
> Since my programming predilection is HPC/scientific/engineering,
> I know little about disk I/O concepts.  So answer these questions
> if you are able.
> 
> Is OpenZFS suitable/recommended for a desktop workstation?
> 
> What are the benefits of OpenZFS compared to EXT4?
> 
> Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?
> 
> I will appreciate all responses.
> 
> 

What's your use case for switching away from EXT4 to OpenZFS?

-- 
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683645

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:12:53 -0500, Phillip wrote:

> 
> What's your use case for switching away from EXT4 to OpenZFS?
>

I have no "use case."  I just want to know if OpenZFS would
be a better choice for a desktop workstation than EXT4.





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683647

On 1/10/25 3:25 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:12:53 -0500, Phillip wrote:
> 
>>
>> What's your use case for switching away from EXT4 to OpenZFS?
>>
> 
> I have no "use case."  I just want to know if OpenZFS would
> be a better choice for a desktop workstation than EXT4.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 

Probably not without having specific requirements that leverage the ZFS 
file system. For example, I use it on a small server to handle RAID1+5 
for a business with 10 employees. At home I have no need for that so 
EXT4 is the better option for my needs at home.

-- 
Phillip Frabott
----------
- Adam: Is a void really a void if it returns?
- Jack: No, it's just nullspace at that point.
----------

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683651

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:37:17 -0500, Phillip wrote:

> 
> Probably not without having specific requirements that leverage the ZFS 
> file system. For example, I use it on a small server to handle RAID1+5 
> for a business with 10 employees. At home I have no need for that so 
> EXT4 is the better option for my needs at home.
>

OK.  Thanks.

I was just curious but I'll stick with EXT4.





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683685

On 1/10/25 4:00 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:37:17 -0500, Phillip wrote:
> 
>>
>> Probably not without having specific requirements that leverage the ZFS
>> file system. For example, I use it on a small server to handle RAID1+5
>> for a business with 10 employees. At home I have no need for that so
>> EXT4 is the better option for my needs at home.
>>
> 
> OK.  Thanks.
> 
> I was just curious but I'll stick with EXT4.

   Hard to go wrong with EXT4, esp on a 'home system'.

   However some ZFS features might be useful in a
   larger, biz, environment. Lots of people love
   the 'snapshot' feature - kind of an easy backup.

   I've fooled with ZFS from time to time but the
   complexity-vs-gain equation never seemed to
   justify it. Now if you had 500 concurrent
   users ......... ?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683728

Le 11-01-2025, 186282@ud0s4.net <186283@ud0s4.net> a écrit :
> On 1/10/25 4:00 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:37:17 -0500, Phillip wrote:
>> 
>>>
>>> Probably not without having specific requirements that leverage the ZFS
>>> file system. For example, I use it on a small server to handle RAID1+5
>>> for a business with 10 employees. At home I have no need for that so
>>> EXT4 is the better option for my needs at home.
>>>
>> 
>> OK.  Thanks.
>> 
>> I was just curious but I'll stick with EXT4.

You are right about it.
It's a bad idea to rely on something owned by Oracle. It's a bad
company which changes the rules of the game during the game. Look at
what happened with java it was free until it starts to be under paid
licence. And there is nothing zfs brings that doesn't exist on other
file systems.

>    Hard to go wrong with EXT4, esp on a 'home system'.

Exactly.

>    However some ZFS features might be useful in a
>    larger, biz, environment. Lots of people love
>    the 'snapshot' feature - kind of an easy backup.
>
>    I've fooled with ZFS from time to time but the
>    complexity-vs-gain equation never seemed to
>    justify it. Now if you had 500 concurrent
>    users ......... ?

If you want snapshots, you have btrfs. If you want really big
environments you have cephfs. So zfs is useless and to be avoided.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683731

On 2025-01-11 07:31, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> If you want snapshots, you have btrfs. If you want really big
> environments you have cephfs. So zfs is useless and to be avoided. 

When I installed Fedora 41, I noticed it installed with btrfs. I was 
expecting there to be some instability or whatever as a consequence of 
using it over ext4, but it's been wonderful so far. Only the NVIDIA 
driver's been a pain in the ass, but I think I figured out what I was 
doing wrong and resolved the issue.

-- 
CrudeSausage
Gab: @CrudeSausage
Unapologetic paleoconservative

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683733

On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 07:45:06 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:

>
> but I think I figured out what I was 
> doing wrong and resolved the issue.
>

Ha, ha, ha, ha!

The total extent of your technical expertise consists
in jiggling the connections and giving the box a hard
thump.

Ha, ha, ha, ha!



-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683739

Le 11-01-2025, Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> a écrit :
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 07:45:06 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
>
>>
>> but I think I figured out what I was 
>> doing wrong and resolved the issue.
>>
>
> The total extent of your technical expertise consists
> in jiggling the connections and giving the box a hard
> thump.

Which looks like it matches exactly your technical level. So, what's
wrong with that?

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683743

On 11 Jan 2025 13:49:04 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:

> 
> Which looks like it matches exactly your technical level.
>

Think so, Carpenter.

What would happen if your favorite GNU/Linux distro were
to suddenly disappear?

Ha, ha!  Then you would be helplessly stuck in the mud.
Your computer would not function and you would, out of
sheer desperation, have to install Microslop Winblows
to save your sorry ass.

But I use no distro.  My system is my own creation and
it will continue to function without problem as long
as I desire.

YOU are a pathetic distro lackey and you have no right
to judge anything technical.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!

You don't even know what the software on your system
is doing.  You have no control, rather it is YOU that
is being controlled.

Good luck.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha!





-- 
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683751

On 1/11/25 9:49 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On 11 Jan 2025 13:49:04 GMT, Stéphane CARPENTIER wrote:
> 
>>
>> Which looks like it matches exactly your technical level.
>>
> 
> Think so, Carpenter.
> 
> What would happen if your favorite GNU/Linux distro were
> to suddenly disappear?
> 


Happens to me rather frequently.

Relf will tell him to change his display cable.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683750

On 1/11/25 6:58 AM, Farley Flud wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Jan 2025 07:45:06 -0500, CrudeSausage wrote:
> 
>>
>> but I think I figured out what I was
>> doing wrong and resolved the issue.
>>
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 
> The total extent of your technical expertise consists
> in jiggling the connections and giving the box a hard
> thump.
> 
> Ha, ha, ha, ha!
> 
> 
> 


And praying to Penis X.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683779

On 1/10/2025 4:00 PM, Lameass Larry wrote:


> Thanks.

huh?

Where's the ' for nothing, assholes.' part?

Is Mom watching over your shoulder?

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683664

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 15:12:53 -0500, Phillip wrote:

> What's your use case for switching away from EXT4 to OpenZFS?

ZFS is to filesystems what Java is to programming languages. It will 
happily chew up all the RAM on your system, given the chance.

If you do have a use case for it, it is best to run it on a dedicated 
filesystem appliance, away from any machine you want for general usage.

Also, this
<https://www.realworldtech.com/forum/?threadid=189711&curpostid=189959>.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683722

Le 10-01-2025, Phillip <nntp@fulltermprivacy.com> a écrit :
> On 1/10/25 2:48 PM, Farley Flud wrote:
>> I hear a lot about the virtues of OpenZFS, which is available
>> for GNU/Linux albeit, due to license concerns, only in a roundabout
>> way.  A separate external module must be compiled and then added
>> to the kernel.
>> 
>> Since my programming predilection is HPC/scientific/engineering,
>> I know little about disk I/O concepts.  So answer these questions
>> if you are able.
>> 
>> Is OpenZFS suitable/recommended for a desktop workstation?
>> 
>> What are the benefits of OpenZFS compared to EXT4?
>> 
>> Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?
>> 
>> I will appreciate all responses.
>> 
>> 
>
> What's your use case for switching away from EXT4 to OpenZFS?

He doesn't. He only pretend he does to make believe he has the technical
capacity of switching between file system. But he can't. It's obvious
and well known here.

-- 
Si vous avez du temps à perdre :
https://scarpet42.gitlab.io

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683669

On 1/10/25 13:48, Farley Flud wrote:
> I hear a lot about the virtues of OpenZFS, which is available for 
> GNU/Linux albeit, due to license concerns, only in a roundabout way.

I'm fairly certain that FreeBSD has also been using OpenZFS for the last 
3-8 years.

> A separate external module must be compiled and then added to the 
> kernel.

I believe I've seen directions on how to integrate that external module 
into a kernel that doesn't support modules.  Some sort of way to graft 
it into the kernel tree so you don't need modules.  I think.

> Since my programming predilection is HPC/scientific/engineering, 
> I know little about disk I/O concepts.  So answer these questions if 
> you are able.
> 
> Is OpenZFS suitable/recommended for a desktop workstation?

I see no reason to not use (Open)ZFS on a desktop workstation.

> What are the benefits of OpenZFS compared to EXT4?

I think that (Open)ZFS's flexibility and capabilities put it in a 
completely different (IMHO better) class than Ext4.

  - snapshots
  - clones
  - send & receive
  - RAID like capabilities
  - (logical) volume management
  - data protection in addition to metadata.

> Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?

I've been using (Open)ZFS to manage millions of files for more than 10 
years.  I'm very happy with it.

> I will appreciate all responses.

The only thing that I will say is that (Open)ZFS is not as fast as a raw 
file system like Ext4.  But I believe that the minor performance penalty 
is well worth it for snapshots and send & receive.



-- 
Grant. . . .

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683680

On Fri, 10 Jan 2025 17:55:07 -0600, Grant Taylor wrote:

>> Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?
> 
> I've been using (Open)ZFS to manage millions of files for more than 10
> years.  I'm very happy with it.

Interesting, though, that Oracle itself cannot (will not?) supply ZFS with 
its own Linux distro, preferring you use BTRFS instead.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#683795

Il Fri, 10 Jan 2025 19:48:37 +0000, Farley Flud ha scritto:

> Is OpenZFS suitable/recommended for a desktop workstation?

Of course / not recommended: you can live happily and more easily without 
it, if you don't need it.
 
> What are the benefits of OpenZFS compared to EXT4?

Aside from being a filesystem? ;) 

For desktops? It's CoW and it has snapshots, and a faster cache.
However these benefits may be completely irrelevant to someone.

> Is OpenZFS stable enough to be trusted?

Enough? Please... are you kidding?

Just check before you upgrade the kernel, if you live on the edge...
-- 
Bye, Lem
		Talis erit dies qualem egeris

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy

csiph-web