Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
m...@netbsd.org writes: > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:12:23PM +0100, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: >> I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to >> get ZFS root. > > > You don't need to build ZFS into the kernel to boot it as a root mount > (same for FFS). The code to load modules from the bootloader already > exists. You do, however, need to write/port the functionality to > do a root mount, and teach the bootloader to read ZFS to find the > kernel (unless you use EFI boot, then maybe put the kernel on the FAT > partition). Yes, you will more or less have to do the equivalent of "zfs mount pool/rootfs" (where pool/rootfs has either mountpoint set to / or uses legacy somehow) or "zfs mount -a" (probably not best and it wouldn't work with legacy) and perhaps a "zpool import" before that, if the pools were not imported into this particular system. I note that the FreeBSD folks seem to have a boot loader that does some of this, but I did not look at how it worked too closely. And, of course, you may be able to get ideas from SmartOS. An alternative to messing with the bootloader may be to leverage sysctl init.root and pivot onto a zpool dataset after booting into a root boot partition. I did this with cgd a couple of years ago. -- Brad Spencer - b...@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:12:23PM +0100, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to > get ZFS root. You don't need to build ZFS into the kernel to boot it as a root mount (same for FFS). The code to load modules from the bootloader already exists. You do, however, need to write/port the functionality to do a root mount, and teach the bootloader to read ZFS to find the kernel (unless you use EFI boot, then maybe put the kernel on the FAT partition).
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 09:12:23PM +0100, Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > > I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to > get ZFS root. > then booting from a snapshot would be super awesome. The solaris alternate boot environments using zfs snapshots makes updating safe and easy. -- Brett Lymn -- Sent from my NetBSD device. "We are were wolves", "You mean werewolves?", "No we were wolves, now we are something else entirely", "Oh"
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Chavdar Ivanov writes: >> Perhaps true, but if the module scheme works for normal cases, little is >> gained for NetBDS to distribute a kernel like that, and it adds >> complexity thinking about licenses. > > Of course. > > I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to > get ZFS root. Two thoughts: you are welcome to build a kernel with it built in and see how that goes. I'd say if it doesn't work that's a bug and patches welcome (but it's quite possible I am failing to understand something). I think our bootloader can load modules (from the same fs as the kernel).
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 21:07, Greg Troxel wrote: > > Chavdar Ivanov writes: > > > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:19, Martin Husemann wrote: > >> > >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote: > >> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: > >> > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. > >> > > >> > On the same topic, is there a perspective for > >> > > >> > file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS > >> > > >> > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? > >> > >> I think this is not possible due to licensing issues. > > > > IANAL, but as far as I understand it, nothing in the CDDL licence > > precludes the static inclusion of ZFS into the NetBSD kernel. > > > > If someone develops a product on the basis of the NetBSD kernel AND > > this product includes modifications of the CDDL-licensed parts of the > > kernel THEN he will be obliged to publish the source code of only the > > files under CDDL (a file-based license) which have been modified. So > > it introduces an element of obligation above and beyond one expects to > > have when using a BSD-licensed software, but does not taint the rest > > of the system in any way. > > > > I personally don't see a problem in having GENERIC+ZFS kernel > > configuration, if this were technically feasible. But, e.g., if a > > commercial entity decides to produce a SAN appliance based on NetBSD > > and using ZFS, and if any CDDL-licensed files have been modified, > > their source code will have to be produced. > > Perhaps true, but if the module scheme works for normal cases, little is > gained for NetBDS to distribute a kernel like that, and it adds > complexity thinking about licenses. Of course. I was thinking that if ZFS were in the kernel, it might be easier to get ZFS root. --
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Chavdar Ivanov writes: > On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:19, Martin Husemann wrote: >> >> On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote: >> > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: >> > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. >> > >> > On the same topic, is there a perspective for >> > >> > file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS >> > >> > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? >> >> I think this is not possible due to licensing issues. > > IANAL, but as far as I understand it, nothing in the CDDL licence > precludes the static inclusion of ZFS into the NetBSD kernel. > > If someone develops a product on the basis of the NetBSD kernel AND > this product includes modifications of the CDDL-licensed parts of the > kernel THEN he will be obliged to publish the source code of only the > files under CDDL (a file-based license) which have been modified. So > it introduces an element of obligation above and beyond one expects to > have when using a BSD-licensed software, but does not taint the rest > of the system in any way. > > I personally don't see a problem in having GENERIC+ZFS kernel > configuration, if this were technically feasible. But, e.g., if a > commercial entity decides to produce a SAN appliance based on NetBSD > and using ZFS, and if any CDDL-licensed files have been modified, > their source code will have to be produced. Perhaps true, but if the module scheme works for normal cases, little is gained for NetBDS to distribute a kernel like that, and it adds complexity thinking about licenses.
Tested a bunch of ZFS with 9.0_BETA [was Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA]
My $DAYJOB puts me in contact with ZFS on SmartOS (Joyent private cloud) and a T4 Sparc with ZFS, so I was quite pleased to hear that ZFS on NetBSD had made progress. Nearly everything I tried with ZFS on NetBSD 9.0_BETA worked as expected. I did the following: 1) Made and destroyed raidz and mirror pools 2) Made and destroyed snapshots 3) Made and (tried) to destroy clones 4) Did send and receives between NetBSD and NetBSD and between NetBSD and FreeBSD in both directions. 5) Tried to use hot spares 6) Abused resilvering (this was all on DOMUs, and I simply xl block-detached the devices) 7) Tested compression and deduplication a bit What did not work with the above tests: a) Hot spares... I could not get a hot spare to actually be used. I could define it in the pool, but no amount of zfs replace would cause it to be used as a replacement and nothing automatic happened. Further, while the man page says that autoreplace should be a attribute but it does not appear that attribute is actually allowed. I could unjoin the spare from the pool and use it then use it with zfs replace, but nothing else worked. b) Trying to promote a clone would result in the "zfs promote ..." command getting stuck in tstile, which mostly results in the inability to get rid of a clone snapshot once you have one (and of course to promote a clone to a full filesystem). When the DOMU was forcefully stopped and rebooted, the zpool appeared to be ok and passed scrub. A lot of good work was obvious done to get ZFS to this state. A big thanks to all who did that work. -- Brad Spencer - b...@anduin.eldar.org - KC8VKS - http://anduin.eldar.org
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Sat, 10 Aug 2019 at 17:19, Martin Husemann wrote: > > On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote: > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: > > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. > > > > On the same topic, is there a perspective for > > > > file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS > > > > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? > > I think this is not possible due to licensing issues. IANAL, but as far as I understand it, nothing in the CDDL licence precludes the static inclusion of ZFS into the NetBSD kernel. If someone develops a product on the basis of the NetBSD kernel AND this product includes modifications of the CDDL-licensed parts of the kernel THEN he will be obliged to publish the source code of only the files under CDDL (a file-based license) which have been modified. So it introduces an element of obligation above and beyond one expects to have when using a BSD-licensed software, but does not taint the rest of the system in any way. I personally don't see a problem in having GENERIC+ZFS kernel configuration, if this were technically feasible. But, e.g., if a commercial entity decides to produce a SAN appliance based on NetBSD and using ZFS, and if any CDDL-licensed files have been modified, their source code will have to be produced. https://web.archive.org/web/20091006181308/http://opensolaris.org/os/about/faq/licensing_faq/#CDDL-combo > > Martin Chavdar --
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Sat, Aug 10, 2019 at 06:17:50PM +0200, Hauke Fath wrote: > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. > > On the same topic, is there a perspective for > > file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS > > (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? I think this is not possible due to licensing issues. Martin
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 16:46:46 +0200, Marc Baudoin wrote: > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. On the same topic, is there a perspective for file-system ZFS # Solaris ZFS (i.e. a monolithic, non-module kernel)? Cheerio, hauke -- The ASCII Ribbon CampaignHauke Fath () No HTML/RTF in emailInstitut für Nachrichtentechnik /\ No Word docs in email TU Darmstadt Respect for open standards Ruf +49-6151-16-21344
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 21:41, Benny Siegert wrote: > > Is root-on-zfs supported at all? I do not need a ZFS-capable > bootloader, I can load the kernel from a different partition via GRUB, > but can the zpool be at the root? Something needs to load the module and mount the pools... > > On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:54 PM Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > > > > FYI I switched all my nvmm virtual machines to use zvols under > > -current, seems to be working rather well. I haven't yer tried > > snapshotting them, I'll do that later, but so far haven't had any > > problems, including performancewise. Previously they used either gpt > > partitions or disk images. > > > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 06:28, Alistair Crooks wrote: > > > > > > Working with a VM. Added 1 CPU and 3GB memory to the instance, 4 GB RAM > > > total > > > > > > Added a 50GB disk, presents as wd2 > > > > > > Commands (edited to show kinda relevant ones) I also have a full backup > > > of my home dir in case I fat fingered anything > > > > > > 9986 19:24dmesg > > > 9987 19:24sudo zpool create z /dev/wd2d > > > 9989 19:25sudo zfs create z/home > > > 9990 19:30sudo zfs set compression=lz4 z/home > > > 9991 19:30sudo zfs set atime=off z/home > > > 9992 19:30sudo zpool get all z > > > 9993 19:31sudo zfs get all z/home > > > 9994 19:31df > > > 9995 19:31du -h ~agc/ > > > 9996 19:32cd /home > > > 9998 19:32sudo pax -rwpe . /z/home/ > > > 19:33df > > > 1 19:35cd / > > > 10004 19:36sudo rm -rf /home > > > 10007 19:37sudo zfs snapshot z/home@20190802 > > > 10009 19:38sudo zfs list > > > 10011 19:38ls -al /z/home > > > 10012 19:38ls -al /z > > > 10013 19:39sudo zfs set mountpoint=/home z/home > > > > > > This is all on 9.99.something, BTW, but near enough to 9.0_BETA > > > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 10:55, Ron Georgia wrote: > > >> > > >> How did you move your home directory? Did you create /tank/home then > > >> symlink the /home -> /tank/home? > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> From: Alistair Crooks > > >> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM > > >> To: Ronald Georgia > > >> Cc: Marc Baudoin , NetBSD Users > > >> > > >> Subject: Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote: > > >> > > >> Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored > > >> pool of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will > > >> be testing snapshots and send/receive. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> BTW, nice job with zfs. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> Hi, > > >> > > >> ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems > > >> usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). > > >> Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still > > >> experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too > > >> early) and what's the goal for the future? > > >> > > >> Thanks. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on > > >> my main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with > > >> the results - snapshots and compression ftw > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs > > >> to zfs until I added more memory. > > >> > > >> > > >> > > >> Best, > > >> > > >> Alistair > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > -- > Benny --
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Is root-on-zfs supported at all? I do not need a ZFS-capable bootloader, I can load the kernel from a different partition via GRUB, but can the zpool be at the root? On Fri, Aug 9, 2019 at 9:54 PM Chavdar Ivanov wrote: > > FYI I switched all my nvmm virtual machines to use zvols under > -current, seems to be working rather well. I haven't yer tried > snapshotting them, I'll do that later, but so far haven't had any > problems, including performancewise. Previously they used either gpt > partitions or disk images. > > On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 06:28, Alistair Crooks wrote: > > > > Working with a VM. Added 1 CPU and 3GB memory to the instance, 4 GB RAM > > total > > > > Added a 50GB disk, presents as wd2 > > > > Commands (edited to show kinda relevant ones) I also have a full backup of > > my home dir in case I fat fingered anything > > > > 9986 19:24dmesg > > 9987 19:24sudo zpool create z /dev/wd2d > > 9989 19:25sudo zfs create z/home > > 9990 19:30sudo zfs set compression=lz4 z/home > > 9991 19:30sudo zfs set atime=off z/home > > 9992 19:30sudo zpool get all z > > 9993 19:31sudo zfs get all z/home > > 9994 19:31df > > 9995 19:31du -h ~agc/ > > 9996 19:32cd /home > > 9998 19:32sudo pax -rwpe . /z/home/ > > 19:33df > > 1 19:35cd / > > 10004 19:36sudo rm -rf /home > > 10007 19:37sudo zfs snapshot z/home@20190802 > > 10009 19:38sudo zfs list > > 10011 19:38ls -al /z/home > > 10012 19:38ls -al /z > > 10013 19:39sudo zfs set mountpoint=/home z/home > > > > This is all on 9.99.something, BTW, but near enough to 9.0_BETA > > > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 10:55, Ron Georgia wrote: > >> > >> How did you move your home directory? Did you create /tank/home then > >> symlink the /home -> /tank/home? > >> > >> > >> > >> From: Alistair Crooks > >> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM > >> To: Ronald Georgia > >> Cc: Marc Baudoin , NetBSD Users > >> > >> Subject: Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote: > >> > >> Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool > >> of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be > >> testing snapshots and send/receive. > >> > >> > >> > >> BTW, nice job with zfs. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin > >> wrote: > >> > >> Hi, > >> > >> ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems > >> usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). > >> Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still > >> experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too > >> early) and what's the goal for the future? > >> > >> Thanks. > >> > >> > >> > >> I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on my > >> main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with the > >> results - snapshots and compression ftw > >> > >> > >> > >> Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs to > >> zfs until I added more memory. > >> > >> > >> > >> Best, > >> > >> Alistair > > > > -- > -- Benny
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
FYI I switched all my nvmm virtual machines to use zvols under -current, seems to be working rather well. I haven't yer tried snapshotting them, I'll do that later, but so far haven't had any problems, including performancewise. Previously they used either gpt partitions or disk images. On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 06:28, Alistair Crooks wrote: > > Working with a VM. Added 1 CPU and 3GB memory to the instance, 4 GB RAM total > > Added a 50GB disk, presents as wd2 > > Commands (edited to show kinda relevant ones) I also have a full backup of my > home dir in case I fat fingered anything > > 9986 19:24dmesg > 9987 19:24sudo zpool create z /dev/wd2d > 9989 19:25sudo zfs create z/home > 9990 19:30sudo zfs set compression=lz4 z/home > 9991 19:30sudo zfs set atime=off z/home > 9992 19:30sudo zpool get all z > 9993 19:31sudo zfs get all z/home > 9994 19:31df > 9995 19:31du -h ~agc/ > 9996 19:32cd /home > 9998 19:32sudo pax -rwpe . /z/home/ > 19:33df > 1 19:35cd / > 10004 19:36sudo rm -rf /home > 10007 19:37sudo zfs snapshot z/home@20190802 > 10009 19:38sudo zfs list > 10011 19:38ls -al /z/home > 10012 19:38ls -al /z > 10013 19:39sudo zfs set mountpoint=/home z/home > > This is all on 9.99.something, BTW, but near enough to 9.0_BETA > > On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 10:55, Ron Georgia wrote: >> >> How did you move your home directory? Did you create /tank/home then symlink >> the /home -> /tank/home? >> >> >> >> From: Alistair Crooks >> Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM >> To: Ronald Georgia >> Cc: Marc Baudoin , NetBSD Users >> >> Subject: Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote: >> >> Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool of >> two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be testing >> snapshots and send/receive. >> >> >> >> BTW, nice job with zfs. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems >> usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). >> Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still >> experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too >> early) and what's the goal for the future? >> >> Thanks. >> >> >> >> I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on my >> main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with the >> results - snapshots and compression ftw >> >> >> >> Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs to >> zfs until I added more memory. >> >> >> >> Best, >> >> Alistair --
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Working with a VM. Added 1 CPU and 3GB memory to the instance, 4 GB RAM
total
Added a 50GB disk, presents as wd2
Commands (edited to show kinda relevant ones) I also have a full backup of
my home dir in case I fat fingered anything
9986 19:24dmesg
9987 19:24sudo zpool create z /dev/wd2d
9989 19:25sudo zfs create z/home
9990 19:30sudo zfs set compression=lz4 z/home
9991 19:30sudo zfs set atime=off z/home
9992 19:30sudo zpool get all z
9993 19:31sudo zfs get all z/home
9994 19:31df
9995 19:31du -h ~agc/
9996 19:32cd /home
9998 19:32sudo pax -rwpe . /z/home/
19:33df
1 19:35cd /
10004 19:36sudo rm -rf /home
10007 19:37sudo zfs snapshot z/home@20190802
10009 19:38sudo zfs list
10011 19:38ls -al /z/home
10012 19:38ls -al /z
10013 19:39sudo zfs set mountpoint=/home z/home
This is all on 9.99.something, BTW, but near enough to 9.0_BETA
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 10:55, Ron Georgia wrote:
> How did you move your home directory? Did you create /tank/home then
> symlink the /home -> /tank/home?
>
>
>
> *From: *Alistair Crooks
> *Date: *Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM
> *To: *Ronald Georgia
> *Cc: *Marc Baudoin , NetBSD Users <
> netbsd-users@netbsd.org>
> *Subject: *Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote:
>
> Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool
> of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be
> testing snapshots and send/receive.
>
>
>
> BTW, nice job with zfs.
>
>
>
> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin
> wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems
> usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress).
> Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still
> experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too
> early) and what's the goal for the future?
>
> Thanks.
>
>
>
> I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on my
> main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with the
> results - snapshots and compression ftw
>
>
>
> Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs to
> zfs until I added more memory.
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Alistair
>
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
How did you move your home directory? Did you create /tank/home then symlink the /home -> /tank/home? From: Alistair Crooks Date: Thursday, August 8, 2019 at 11:53 AM To: Ronald Georgia Cc: Marc Baudoin , NetBSD Users Subject: Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote: Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be testing snapshots and send/receive. BTW, nice job with zfs. On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin wrote: Hi, ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too early) and what's the goal for the future? Thanks. I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on my main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with the results - snapshots and compression ftw Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs to zfs until I added more memory. Best, Alistair
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
On Thu, 8 Aug 2019 at 07:52, Ronald Georgia wrote: > Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool > of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be > testing snapshots and send/receive. > > BTW, nice job with zfs. > > On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin > wrote: > >> Hi, >> >> ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems >> usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). >> Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still >> experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too >> early) and what's the goal for the future? >> >> Thanks. >> > I have no idea of official status, but I've moved the home directory on my main development machine to zfs, and am extremely happy so far with the results - snapshots and compression ftw Having said that, I did have issues copying some larger files from ffs to zfs until I added more memory. Best, Alistair
Subject: Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
>Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool of >two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be testing >snapshots and send/receive. >BTW, nice job with zfs. >>On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin >> wrote: >>Hi, >> >>ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems >>usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). >>Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still >>experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too >>early) and what's the goal for the future? >> >>Thanks. Sorry if this mail is a bit weirdly formatted, I only received notice of this thread after, so I'm doing my best to get it into the existing thread. I had the opportunity to test ZFS on sparc64 for a fortnight a while ago and couldn't make it suddenly burst into flame to put it, and it seemed to do everything I tested including when I threw in the kitchen sink and ran some benchmarks (can't really speak as to the speed itself, as it was old hardware not really capable of any notable fasts/second). As far as I've been able to spot, the code import touches none of the code paths which would break the central features of ZFS, so it seems like an obvious time for someone with better testing facilities to run it for an extended period of time. Unfortunately because of various things which I shan't get into here, I don't really remember _how_ I got it working. :( That being said, chs@ and hannken@ deserve a serious amount of credit for their work in getting it all situated! Daniel Ebdrup aka. D. Ebdrup.
Re: State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Same here. I have two 9BETA machines using zfs. Both have a mirrored pool of two disks. So far things seem to be working. This weekend I will be testing snapshots and send/receive. BTW, nice job with zfs. On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 10:47 AM Marc Baudoin wrote: > Hi, > > ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems > usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). > Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still > experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too > early) and what's the goal for the future? > > Thanks. >
State of ZFS in 9.0_BETA
Hi, ZFS has been updated for 9.0_BETA. I've tried it and it seems usable (I couldn't make it work in 8.0 so it's a real progress). Now I'd like to know what's its state in 9.0_BETA (still experimental, quite stable, production ready --- might be too early) and what's the goal for the future? Thanks.
