I've been running Zfsonlinux.org zfs on debian for maybe two years. I don't have root fs on zfs. I keep a working copy of the system dirs I have mounted on zfs on ext3. (Var and usr). ONE time, the dkms had problems and I was glad I had those extra copies (rsync from the zfs ones in a cron job) I don't see zfs as super fast, lvm based raid would be faster. But the snapshots and other features are awesome. I love cloning a vm instantly.
On October 11, 2014 9:33:15 PM EDT, lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >Reco <recovery...@gmail.com> writes: > >> Hi. >> >> On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:20:50 +0200 >> lee <l...@yagibdah.de> wrote: >> >>> > The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of >>> > the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting >kernel >>> > modules for video and wireless hardware among others. >>> >>> So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? >> >> ZFS is out-of-tree kernel module. It *will* break sooner or later. >Every >> out-of-tree module does. > >Hm. I've seen it happening, and since then, I do not at all like the >idea of using hardware that isn't supported by something in the kernel. >When it happens, it might even be worse with file systems than it is >with hardware. > >>> Which >>> kernel version is ZFS based on/for? >> >> [1] tells us that ZFS on Linux verion 0.6.3 supports kernels 2.6.26 - >> 3.16. > >Cool, apparently they even test it with Debian kernels :) > >>> Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old >for >>> that? >> >> A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. > >So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it >work? > >> But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) > >I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 >provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID >levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared >to >software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be >safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to >try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would >bring about. > >>> They need to get these license issues fixed ... >> >> Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that >> this license issue would *never* be fixed. >> Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, >including >> GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? > >Why don't they? > > >-- >Hallowed are the Debians! > > >-- >To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org >with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact >listmas...@lists.debian.org >Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874mva3wdg....@yun.yagibdah.de
