On May 6, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Michelle Sullivan <miche...@sorbs.net> wrote:
My issue here (and not really what the blog is about) FreeBSD is
defaulting to it.
You've said this at least twice now in this thread so I'm assuming you're
asserting it to be true.
As of FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE (and all earlier releases), FreeBSD does NOT
default to ZFS.
The images distributed by freebsd.org, e.g., Vagrant boxes, ARM images, EC2
instances, etc., contain disk images where FreeBSD resides on UFS. For
example, here's what you end up with when you launch a 12.0-RELEASE
instance using defaults on AWS (us-east-1 region: ami-03b0f822e17669866):
root@freebsd:/usr/home/ec2-user # gpart show
=> 3 20971509 ada0 GPT (10G)
3 123 1 freebsd-boot (62K)
126 20971386 2 freebsd-ufs (10G)
And this is what you get when you "vagrant up" the
freebsd/FreeBSD-12.0-RELEASE box:
root@freebsd:/home/vagrant # gpart show
=> 3 65013755 ada0 GPT (31G)
3 123 1 freebsd-boot (62K)
126 2097152 2 freebsd-swap (1.0G)
2097278 62914560 3 freebsd-ufs (30G)
65011838 1920 - free - (960K)
When you install from the 12.0-RELEASE ISO, the first option listed during
the partitioning stage is "Auto (UFS) Guided Disk Setup". The last option
listed---after "Open a shell and partition by hand" is "Auto (ZFS) Guided
Root-on-ZFS". In other words, you have to skip over UFS and manual
partitioning to select the ZFS install option.
So, I don't see what evidence there is that FreeBSD is defaulting to ZFS.
It hasn't up to now. Will FreeBSD 13 default to ZFS?
FreeBSD used to be targeted at enterprise and devs (which is where I found
it)... however the last few years have been a big push into the consumer
(compete with Linux) market.. so you have an OS that concerns itself with the
desktop and upgrade after upgrade after upgrade (not just patching security
issues, but upgrades as well.. just like windows and OSX)... I get it.. the
money is in the keeping of the user base.. but then you install a file system
which is dangerous on a single disk by default... dangerous because it’s
trusted and “can’t fail” .. until it goes titsup.com and then the entire drive
is lost and all the data on it.. it’s the double standard... advocate you need
ECC ram, multiple vdevs etc, then single drive it.. sorry.. which one is it?
Gaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhhh!
As people have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's false to claim
that ZFS is unsafe on consumer hardware. It's no less safe than UFS on
single-disk setups.
Because anecdote is not evidence, I will refrain from saying, "I've lost
far more data on UFS than I have on ZFS (especially when SUJ was shaking
out its bugs)..." >;-)
What I will agree with is that, probably due to its relative youth, ZFS has
less forensics/data recovery tools than UFS. I'm sure this will improve as
time goes on. (I even posted a link to an article describing someone
adding ZFS support to a forensics toolkit earlier in this thread.)
Cheers,
Paul.
_______________________________________________
freebsd-stable@freebsd.org mailing list
https://lists.freebsd.org/mailman/listinfo/freebsd-stable
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-stable-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"
