Re: [Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

On 5/20/2016 2:23 PM, Jerry Feldman wrote: > Richard, why are you moving to ZFS when you already have BTRFS. Certainly > ZFS is more mature. Because ZFS is more mature and has better tools. It should also make a switch to *BSD much easier. -- Rich P.

Re: [Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

Richard, why are you moving to ZFS when you already have BTRFS. Certainly ZFS is more mature. On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 2:13 PM, Dan Ritter wrote: > On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:39:51PM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: > > Please share your experiences with both BTRFS and ZFS. > >

Re: [Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 01:39:51PM -0400, Jerry Feldman wrote: > Please share your experiences with both BTRFS and ZFS. I use btrfs in RAID 1 and RAID 10 mode on spinning disks, RAID 1 on ssd, zfs in RAID 10 on spinning disks with independent ZIL and L2ARC (read and write caches) on ssd, and in

Re: [Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

Please share your experiences with both BTRFS and ZFS. On Fri, May 20, 2016 at 1:12 PM, Shirley Márquez Dúlcey wrote: > Also in Ubuntu 16.04. The versions in Debian evidently got a lot of > patches from Ubuntu; it's nice to see code flowing in that direction > for a change.

Re: [Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

Also in Ubuntu 16.04. The versions in Debian evidently got a lot of patches from Ubuntu; it's nice to see code flowing in that direction for a change. Ubuntu uses a lot of code from Debian but hasn't always been good about sending it back, though that's as much the fault of the Debian developers

[Discuss] ZFS On Linux "in" Debian, migration from Btrfs

So. ZFS On Linux is now officially in the Debian contrib repositories for stable, testing and sid. Neat. I'm working on a recipe for a live migration from Btrfs to ZFS. It's something I've wanted to do for a while but haven't because ZOL packages are only for jessie and wheezy while I'm running

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

On 01/07/2013 07:39 PM, Edward Ned Harvey (blu) wrote: From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss- bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Feldman In my mind the important issue is resistance to drive failure. What happens in both ZFS and Btrfs in the case

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss- bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Jerry Feldman In my experiencein the workplace there have been many power failures. At Riverside we even had a bus hit a pole knocking out power to both us and the T. At

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

Another fundamental difference is how the two handle mirrored data and metadata. ZFS's mirroring is built on conventional plexes. In a simple 4 disk array, pairs of physical devices are bonded as single virtual devices and then these vdevs are joined to form a larger pool. Anything written to one

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

On Wed, 2 Jan 2013 10:55:24 -0500 Rich Pieri richard.pi...@gmail.com wrote: I cannot honestly compare performance since I was running RAID-Z with ZFS and mirrored data+metadata with Btrfs. I have a test computer at work that I will use at some point to make valid comparisons. Following up on

[Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

Rich Pieri wrote: The center of this star configuration is a Debian server: the HP N40L discussed earlier this year. Data is on a Btrfs volume with mirrored data and metadata. You started out using ZFS on that server, right? What were your reasons for switching to Btrfs and how have your

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss- bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro Rich Pieri wrote: The center of this star configuration is a Debian server: the HP N40L discussed earlier this year. Data is on a Btrfs volume with mirrored data

Re: [Discuss] ZFS vs. Btrfs

On Wed, 02 Jan 2013 03:01:23 -0500 Tom Metro tmetro+...@gmail.com wrote: You started out using ZFS on that server, right? Indeed, I did. What were your reasons for switching to Btrfs and how have your comparative experiences been? The primary reason is performance. ZFS with FUSE has a lot

[Discuss] ZFS Backups

Back when I set up the server I wasn't sure how I'd handle backups. I'm a little more sure, now. Most of what is on the server is replicas of some other media: my notebooks' backups, my CD and DVD collection, and so forth. Loss of the server does not mean loss of data, so backups in this

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

Tom Metro noted: I see the focus of OCFS2 is clustering, which is not necessarily the case for Btrfs. There doesn't seem to be a leading choice for clustering file systems for Linux. Plenty of options, but no clear leader. Yet another of these file systems (GlusterFS) is the topic of this

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

From: discuss-bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org [mailto:discuss- bounces+blu=nedharvey@blu.org] On Behalf Of Tom Metro Neither ZFS nor OCFS2 can compete for raw performance with ext4... Reference? I was going to comment on that - and then I wasn't - and now I am. Minimally. In all

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

Rich Braun wrote: ZFS kernel module for Linux is not an Oracle/Sun-sponsored product, so far as I can tell. Lawrence Livermore Labs appears to be the current sponsor (see zfsonlinux.org) of the Linux upstream. A firm in India called KQ Infotech pioneered this port but then got bought out by

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

Bill Bogstad wrote: m...@ciranttechnologies.com wrote: Yeah, against commercial vendors, not end users. I'm 99% sure that Ed was right. In that RMS' video being discussed on a different thread, he talks about...that end users can be sued directly. Correct. The first example that came to

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 11:51 PM, m...@ciranttechnologies.com wrote: No matter who you are, no matter what open source license you release something under, if you are the copyright holder, you have the right to re-release your code under any new license you want, and you have the right

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

From: m...@ciranttechnologies.com [mailto:m...@ciranttechnologies.com] Sorry, that's incorrect. If somebody patents something, and later somebody else releases an open-source thing which violates that patent, then the patent holder has grounds for legal action, against the producers,

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

Rich Braun wrote: ...at least not on Linux until ZFS is made available as a stable kernel module. (The usual patent and licensing crap is responsible for this situation. ZFS has been integrated into the FreeBSD kernel (as I'm sure you know), and despite being a less lucrative target for

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

ZFS has been integrated into the FreeBSD kernel (as I'm sure you know), and despite being a less lucrative target for patent suits, is theoretically subject to the same patent infringement liability, yet I haven't heard of Sun/Oracle pursuing that. ZFS was released under the CDDL license,

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

On Tue, Sep 27, 2011 at 10:47 PM, Edward Ned Harvey b...@nedharvey.comwrote: ZFS is part of solaris. Yes it's closed source now. Open source is great for a lot of situations, but certainly not all. Here's what happened with ZFS: They open-sourced it. The community didn't contribute.

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

No matter who you are, no matter what open source license you release something under, if you are the copyright holder, you have the right to re-release your code under any new license you want, and you have the right Yes, re-release under a new license, but that doesn't invalidate the

Re: [Discuss] ZFS

On Sep 27, 2011, at 10:47 PM, Edward Ned Harvey wrote: close-sourced it again. If you want ZFS, you must either pay snoracle, or go use one of the forks which have not received significant development effort in approx 1 year. If you do go use one of the forks, be aware the only reason those