I appreciate your taking the time to send that, and also thanks to Nick
Holland for posting earlier.
I'm writing this on the laptop in question.
It seems like, as with so many things, it's hard to know who to believe
and things are probably more nuanced than some would say. That's my way
of kind of waffling. There's no shortage of ZFS fanboys, so it's
interesting to see what seems to be a pretty informed opinion to the
contrary.
I haven't noticed any issues with this machine since the kernel
panic/fsck issue. Certainly the links you posted show people having bad
experiences with (or in spite of) ZFS.
When I restarted the machine and it dropped to a shell saying there were
filesystem issues the ensuing fsck process was worse than I had seen
before. That kind of alarmed me.
Thanks,
John
On 9/10/23 06:26, tetrosalame wrote:
Il 05/09/2023 14:54, John Holland ha scritto:
I just had a kernel panic when reloading a firefox tab pointed at
[...]
I've really been enjoying OpenBSD but I think it could really use a
journaled filesystem. I believe I have the correct options in fstab for
[...]
Journals *might* make your filesystem consistent faster. Except when
they don't. When things go bad, you come to learn that journals are
different: some journal is more about metadata, another thing pretends
to care about your data too (then you read the code and find out it
mostly doesn't). Complex things tend to fail really hard.
To get the system up quickly in case of disaster OpenBSD has altroot,
see daily(8). From there is just fsck's job. Or time to discover if
your backups are in good shape. OpenBSD has solid tools for backups
too in base (dump, tar, openrsync...).
> OpenZFS? License issues? Hammer? Anything?
Please, read this 2017 message from Nick Holland:
https://marc.info/?l=openbsd-misc&m=148894780327753&w=2
Re-read the paragraph about ZFS. I can't agree more. And when he wrote
that, ZFS was, for the most part, Solaris -> Illumos based. Back then,
it kinda worked. Now, OpenZFS is ZFS on Linux and shares the same bad
attitude.
Sometimes people use ZFS to "avoid" fsck, because, you know, ZFS (and
HAMMER and God-knows-what-the-latest-linux-thing-is-named) doesn't
need fsck. Except when it does (read this horror story
http://www.michellesullivan.org/blog/1726).
If I got a cent everytime I heard "sorry friend your pool is gone,
restore from backup" I could retire now.
