We are using simfs because ploop do not support 16+ TB partitions. Please do not drop simfs support.
2015-07-22 8:47 GMT+03:00 Kir Kolyshkin <k...@openvz.org>: > > > On 07/21/2015 07:56 PM, Scott Dowdle wrote: > >> Greetings, >> >> ----- Original Message ----- >> >>> ZFS is really "The Last Word in File Systems", >>> and now you can just use it for free, >>> without reinventing the wheel. >>> >>> OpenVZ + ZFS or Virtuozzo + ZFS == atom bomb, >>> killer feature with horrible devastation power. >>> >>> Or - you just forcing users to migrate from OpenVZ >>> to CentOS+KVM over ZFS and/or CentOS+Docker over ZFS. >>> >> Whatever. So many ZFS users seem to be such fanatics they will abandon >> anything that gets in its way... while none of the top 10 Linux distros >> will ship it. Folks like Jesse Smith from Distrowatch say there is nothing >> wrong with distros shipping ZFS... as long as it continues to be packaged >> separately from the kernel (a module rather than compiled in)... but >> still... no one ships it. I believe Debian is working on changing that and >> I wish them luck. >> >> I've tried it. I've read the recipes. Some say you have to dedicate 1GB >> of RAM for every TB of storage. To build a high performance ZFS-based >> fileserver you really want to custom design the thing with the right >> combination of read cache disks, write cache disks, etc. It has >> compression, encryption, dedup (not sure if that is in the Linux version >> yet), etc. I'm guessing if you just want to ZFS for local stuff (VMs, >> containers, server applications, etc) you don't have to worry as much >> getting an optimal setup as you would for a dedicated fileserver. >> > > I second that. ZFS seems to be pretty hungry for RAM, and the requirements > are even higher if you like deduplication feature to work. That means > either > lower container density (you can run less CTs if you use ploop), or higher > memory > requirements (you need more RAM to run same amount of CTs on ZFS). > >> >> I haven't really had a reason to use it. ZFS + OpenVZ = atomic bomb? >> Whatever. >> >> I'd prefer to see BTRFS mature... and once that is in every Linux distro >> by default... and widely deployed... I don't think ZFS will be that >> relevant except among the fanatics. Now having said that I realize it >> could take years before BTRFS is considered good enough by most folks. I >> certain hope it doesn't take that long but who knows? No need to tell me >> how much BTRFS sucks and ZFS rocks. >> >> Please don't provide me with why ZFS is the god of filesystems. I've >> heard it all before. If you use and like all of those features and ZFS >> works great for you... go for it... more power to you. >> >> Regarding OpenVZ checkpoint / restore and live migration... it has worked >> well for me since it was originally released in 2007 (or was it 2008?). >> While I've had a few kernel panics in the almost 10 years I've been using >> OpenVZ (starting with the EL4-based kernel)... I can't remember what year I >> had my last one. >> >> I see people come into the #openvz IRC channel with bugs all of the >> time. The vast majority of the time it turns out they are way behind the >> current stable versions of the vzkernel and vzctl. They really do fix bugs >> in every release so why people seem to think it is ok to ignore updates for >> months or years is beyond me. I have no idea if you do or not... but >> hopefully you can feel my pain. Are there bugs in the bug reporting >> system? Sure. People say Debian is the most stable Linux distro around >> (I'm not a Debian user) but if you look in their but reporting system I'm >> sure there are thousands (or more likely, tens of thousands) of bug >> reports. I guess one should expect that with tens of thousands of >> packages... but my point is there will always be bugs... but to point at a >> bug report and give up saying that it isn't stable because of bug report >> x... or that some people have had panics at some point in history... well, >> that isn't very reflective of the overall picture! >> > . ! > >> Nothing personal. We just disagree on a few topics. We probably >> agree on way more things though. >> >> I don't use checkpoint and restore directly... but do with vzmigrate. >> Every time I upgrade vzkernel I use live migration... so I can have as much >> container uptime as possible. I've had a few times when live migration >> didn't work but in every case it failed safely and I was able to do an >> offline migration instead. The times it didn't work were when my CPUs >> differed greatly between hosts... or the vzkernel I was running differed >> too much (I run testing kernels on a host or two). If you don't have a use >> for offline nor online migration... ok... but lots of people do use it... >> and if ZFS means it can't be used... that is just another reason (for me) >> not to use ZFS. >> >> TYL, >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > Users mailing list > Users@openvz.org > https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users >
_______________________________________________ Users mailing list Users@openvz.org https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users