ZFS On Linux Is Now Set For "Wide Scale Deployment"
Phoronix: ZFS On Linux Is Now Set For "Wide Scale Deployment"
The Sun/Oracle ZFS file-system port to the Linux kernel has now been deemed ready with its new release as "ready for wide scale deployment on everything from desktops to super computers." Will you use ZFS On Linux?..
Will I use ZFS on Linux?
I already do... I'm attempting to use it to recover a corrupted 3-drive ZFS Raid pool that my NAS ate while I was swapping a drive out (and attempting to re-size the pool at the same time).
That being said, I broke the pool out of my own stupidity right after I had neglected to take a fresh backup due to impatience... So either I re-write the parts of ZFS that handle the drive labels to remove the checksum verification and convince it that the missing drive is just off-line, or I lose about 10 years of digital photos...
When I've just left the ZFS array on its own, it has performed wonderfully and reliably in the 3-drive setup in my freenas box. The on-line scrubbing/verification and end-to-end checksums are re-assuring, as well as the fault tolerance for a single-drive failure. Backups are still required anyway, but it's reassuring to know that if a drive dies I have time to find a spare and swap it in without having to scramble.
Current uptime is only ~90 days, but that's due to some power outages at the beginning of winter.
why don't you, for this job, just use freebsd or even better- solaris? solaris has the best/latest support for zfs
Nope, not going to use it. Btrfs does everything I need already, so why should I even bother with ZFS? Especially since it's under the CDDL.
Though, CDDL license is the only license that is worse then the BSD license.
Originally Posted by GreatEmerald
Last time I tried using it for production was the KQ Infotech port on RHEL6, but that wasn't stable under high IO load (BackupPC Server).
Originally Posted by garegin
Since, I have also tried the LLN port to access data on zfs pools for recovery with success, but due to the nature of the usage cannot generalize a recommendation.
If you do new ZFS benchmarks Michael, please do not just do single disk / SSD benchmarks. These are pointless. A comparison of a multidisk mdadm raid5/6 vs a ZFS raidz /raidz2 would be very interesting though. Added information value could be gained by testing how much a ZIL log or cache device SSD improves speeds.
Otherwise thanks for the greate site! :-)
That code had numerous issues; I know because I wrote fixes for several of them. You should have a far better experience with the latest ZFSOnLinux code.
Originally Posted by Ares Drake
That would be great, but I doubt it will happen. Michael informed me that he was not comfortable doing multiple disk benchmarks because he lacked appropriate enterprise hardware when I last spoke to him. This is despite the fact that ZFS will work well without highend hardware (it is a selling point!) and the old disks that he has would be fine. :/
Originally Posted by Ares Drake
I have been using zfs for quite a while now.
while zfs and btrfs have a similar design, there is a big difference between them.
ZFS has been released as a stable filesystem many years ago by Sun Microsystem, and is now released as stable on linux,
while btrfs is not yet stable after many years and still considered experimental/in developpment/not stable.
If you want a filesystem with btree functionnality in production, your only choice is zfs.
one biased opinion to read :
Linux is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.
ZFS is a great piece of technology and it is free and open source.
It is just so sad that we can't integrate it mainline due to license incompatibilities.
License proliferation is harming the free open source software community.