Re: alternative file systems
Reco recovery...@gmail.com writes: One of the disadvantages with mdadm is that it can severely impact performance. Agreed. Still, I view RAID as a disaster prevention tool first, and any performance increases come only second if they do at all. Yes --- disk failures are so frequent that there's no way to do without the redundancy RAID provides. Just the day before yesterday I've seen yet another disk failing. It was even an unusual failure in that there were no signs of it failing. It's still being detected but has all of a sudden become completely unaccessable. Fortunately, it's a software RAID which allowed me to plug in an USB disk and another one as a spare: that sucks, yet it's better than nothing. So software RAID has an advantage I'd have never dreamed of because I would never use an USB disk like that ... It's really an extreme case. That doesn't mean that raid-5 with btrfs wouldn't have this disadvantage, too. Sure. I'd only wait two or three years before trying it. btrfs by itself is interesting, it only needs to get rid of those 'experimental' labels IMO. It might take another 10 years or so. I wonder what the makers of hardware RAID controllers are doing --- they should make hardware ZFS or btrfs controllers ... And not having the checksumming has never caused a problem for me, as far as I can tell ... Still that doesn't mean that it hasn't. The morale of the story is that checksums are not a silver bullet. Depending on how much data you have, not having checksums is like accidentially shooting into your own foot, though. So how can we safely store large amounts of data? As far as long-term storage goes - I prefer LTO7. As for the short-term storage - I prefer ext4, lvm, mdadm *and* a backup. I've come to the same conclusion, though I prefer hardware RAID for better performance. Such a combination of non-fancy tools currently seems to provide the best compromise of reliability and ease-of use. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87lho41bab@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: Reco recovery...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:33:15AM +0200, lee wrote: A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it work? I wouldn't trust my data to that feature :) It has 'experimental' and 'biohazard' labels strapped everywhere. I prefer trusty mdadm for any RAID. One of the disadvantages with mdadm is that it can severely impact performance. Agreed. Still, I view RAID as a disaster prevention tool first, and any performance increases come only second if they do at all. That doesn't mean that raid-5 with btrfs wouldn't have this disadvantage, too. Sure. I'd only wait two or three years before trying it. btrfs by itself is interesting, it only needs to get rid of those 'experimental' labels IMO. But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would bring about. A real story. A recent one, a couple of weeks fresh. One shop buys *very* expensive Sun SuperCluster T4 with Solaris 11 and, of course, ZFS. Configures a couple of LDOMs on it. So far, so good. And then - it happens. A simple oversight - they filled up to 100% one of LDOMs' root zpool. They say that is should not happen, yet I've seen it with my own eyes - ZFS happily ate (i.e. they disappeared without a trace) a couple of shared libraries, rendering some basic OS utilities unusable. So, what good was those magical ZFS checksums did? And not having the checksumming has never caused a problem for me, as far as I can tell ... Still that doesn't mean that it hasn't. The morale of the story is that checksums are not a silver bullet. They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? Why don't they? Simple - they sell servers based on Solaris as storage appliances (and they nearly 10 years behind ZFS on Linux as far as ZFS is concerned). Who will buy these servers if the same can be achieved with cheap Linux server? Oracle is greedy. But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? Beats me. Either they use 'more expensive is better' approach, or they use human beings to watch very carefully that their filesystems do not overflow. And of course, such people backup their data usually :) So how can we safely store large amounts of data? As far as long-term storage goes - I prefer LTO7. As for the short-term storage - I prefer ext4, lvm, mdadm *and* a backup. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141018120254.2473361fa4c027f8e2996...@gmail.com
Re: alternative file systems
Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, and great for lots of data. Storing all your data in Postgres is surely possible, but what about convenience of doing so? I mean, how easily the data (say, home videos or photo collection) can be put in and retreived. Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141018120617.077d60723d4c84c999ed0...@gmail.com
Re: alternative file systems
On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:06:17 +0400 Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, and great for lots of data. Storing all your data in Postgres is surely possible, but what about convenience of doing so? I mean, how easily the data (say, home videos or photo collection) can be put in and retreived. Reco I think comm got crossed. Somebody had asked why we use Oracle, someone else said that was a safe DBMS, and I said what about Postgres. I would never, never, NEVER store file data like home video or photos in a DBMS. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141018091445.6bed5...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: alternative file systems
On 19/10/14 00:14, Steve Litt wrote: On Sat, 18 Oct 2014 12:06:17 +0400 Reco recovery...@gmail.com wrote: Hi. On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 18:24:16 -0400 Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com wrote: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? Thought the context has been removed from the quote... Reasons I've been given (roughly in order of occurrence):- because it cost a lot of money (for some value is relative to cost), because their apps/developers demand it, because that's what the cheque signers recognise, because it works for them, because they feel comfortable doing what the Jones are doing. If it did eat files for those that pay the big money - they wouldn't continue using it, though they might sack the administrators. The reasons given may not be the real reasons - my impression is that having made the choice (as the result of a deep emotional investment) they're unwilling to reassess their original opinion (which would challenge the reliability of their gut instinct. Alternatively, why buy a Rolls Royce? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, and great for lots of data. Storing all your data in Postgres is surely possible, but what about convenience of doing so? I mean, how easily the data (say, home videos or photo collection) can be put in and retreived. To be fair, implementation and the management system are major factors in determining it's usability. Reco I think comm got crossed. Somebody had asked why we use Oracle, someone else said that was a safe DBMS, and I said what about Postgres. I would never, never, NEVER store file data like home video or photos in a DBMS. That's a perfectly valid personal choice, others (e.g. professional photographers and web developers) find image databases *indispensable* - especially when working with large (and very large) numbers of images. FOSS candidates include personal/professional image database-based programs like DigiKam, server apps like MediaGoblin, OpenDAM, and many others. As to choice of db - that's another personal choice, for every variation there's someone who'll point out the failing, in their 'experience' (mysql, postgres, nosql, etc, etc) there's a large and reputable company/site/institution that swears by it. And it that choice fails (eats files) there's usually an integrity checking and backup solution that someone says will fix it (if only the complainant had implement them). Flickr, Imgur, Youtube, Deviantart, and huge number of related sites seem to do OK... (and I'm specifically limiting my comments to Open Source - Adobe is another kettle of fish). I've had problems with half a dozen types of databases, and trouble free experiences with the same ones using different applications. I'd also note that others have had different experiences with the same applications. Implementation and use are major factors. -8--8 Kind regards -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5442637a.6030...@gmail.com
Re: alternative file systems
John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org writes: http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatKernelVersionsAreSupported Debian 7.0 (Wheezy) - x86_64 Unfortunately, that isn't sufficiently recent. -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87k33ztsnx@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
Reco recovery...@gmail.com writes: On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:33:15AM +0200, lee wrote: A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it work? I wouldn't trust my data to that feature :) It has 'experimental' and 'biohazard' labels strapped everywhere. I prefer trusty mdadm for any RAID. One of the disadvantages with mdadm is that it can severely impact performance. That doesn't mean that raid-5 with btrfs wouldn't have this disadvantage, too. But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would bring about. A real story. A recent one, a couple of weeks fresh. One shop buys *very* expensive Sun SuperCluster T4 with Solaris 11 and, of course, ZFS. Configures a couple of LDOMs on it. So far, so good. And then - it happens. A simple oversight - they filled up to 100% one of LDOMs' root zpool. They say that is should not happen, yet I've seen it with my own eyes - ZFS happily ate (i.e. they disappeared without a trace) a couple of shared libraries, rendering some basic OS utilities unusable. So, what good was those magical ZFS checksums did? And not having the checksumming has never caused a problem for me, as far as I can tell ... Still that doesn't mean that it hasn't. They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? Why don't they? Simple - they sell servers based on Solaris as storage appliances (and they nearly 10 years behind ZFS on Linux as far as ZFS is concerned). Who will buy these servers if the same can be achieved with cheap Linux server? Oracle is greedy. But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87oatbtsr9@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org writes: I don't see zfs as super fast, lvm based raid would be faster. But the snapshots and other features are awesome. I love cloning a vm instantly. And not to forget the checksumming :) The checksumming is the nicer the more data you store. But seriously store large amounts of data on ZFS with Linux? I really don't know if that's such a good idea :/ -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87siintszu@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, and great for lots of data. SteveT Steve Litt* http://www.troubleshooters.com/ Troubleshooting Training * Human Performance -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141017182416.2a4db...@mydesq2.domain.cxm
Re: alternative file systems
Steve Litt sl...@troubleshooters.com writes: On Fri, 17 Oct 2014 03:00:26 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: But when it eats files and is 10 years behind, why are people buying it? So how can we safely store large amounts of data? I thought Postgres was supposed to be powerful, stable, reliable, and great for lots of data. And postgres stores the data in thin air? Or where? How well suited it is for storing files? -- Again we must be afraid of speaking of daemons for fear that daemons might swallow us. Finally, this fear has become reasonable. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/87ppdqgsax@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
On Sun, Oct 12, 2014 at 03:33:15AM +0200, lee wrote: A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it work? I wouldn't trust my data to that feature :) It has 'experimental' and 'biohazard' labels strapped everywhere. I prefer trusty mdadm for any RAID. But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would bring about. A real story. A recent one, a couple of weeks fresh. One shop buys *very* expensive Sun SuperCluster T4 with Solaris 11 and, of course, ZFS. Configures a couple of LDOMs on it. So far, so good. And then - it happens. A simple oversight - they filled up to 100% one of LDOMs' root zpool. They say that is should not happen, yet I've seen it with my own eyes - ZFS happily ate (i.e. they disappeared without a trace) a couple of shared libraries, rendering some basic OS utilities unusable. So, what good was those magical ZFS checksums did? They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? Why don't they? Simple - they sell servers based on Solaris as storage appliances (and they nearly 10 years behind ZFS on Linux as far as ZFS is concerned). Who will buy these servers if the same can be achieved with cheap Linux server? Oracle is greedy. REco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141013073908.ga25...@d1696.int.rdtex.ru
Re: alternative file systems
Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br writes: On 10/10/2014 10:20 PM, lee wrote: The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? They need to get these license issues fixed ... There's a userland ZFS package (via Fuse) available in debian in the zfs-fuse package. It should be pretty much independent of kernel versions. Yes, and I've been reading it's deprecated do to zfs with fuse. Perhaps it's great to try out ZFS, and you still won't really find out if it would work or not. And I'd want to be able to boot from ZFS, which is even difficult with btrfs. In any case, there is a very noticeable performance loss with software RAID. I wonder why they don't make ZFS controllers just like RAID controllers ... -- Hallowed are the Debians! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/878ukm3wyc@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
Reco recovery...@gmail.com writes: Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:20:50 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? ZFS is out-of-tree kernel module. It *will* break sooner or later. Every out-of-tree module does. Hm. I've seen it happening, and since then, I do not at all like the idea of using hardware that isn't supported by something in the kernel. When it happens, it might even be worse with file systems than it is with hardware. Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? [1] tells us that ZFS on Linux verion 0.6.3 supports kernels 2.6.26 - 3.16. Cool, apparently they even test it with Debian kernels :) Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it work? But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would bring about. They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? Why don't they? -- Hallowed are the Debians! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874mva3wdg@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
I've been running Zfsonlinux.org zfs on debian for maybe two years. I don't have root fs on zfs. I keep a working copy of the system dirs I have mounted on zfs on ext3. (Var and usr). ONE time, the dkms had problems and I was glad I had those extra copies (rsync from the zfs ones in a cron job) I don't see zfs as super fast, lvm based raid would be faster. But the snapshots and other features are awesome. I love cloning a vm instantly. On October 11, 2014 9:33:15 PM EDT, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: Reco recovery...@gmail.com writes: Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:20:50 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? ZFS is out-of-tree kernel module. It *will* break sooner or later. Every out-of-tree module does. Hm. I've seen it happening, and since then, I do not at all like the idea of using hardware that isn't supported by something in the kernel. When it happens, it might even be worse with file systems than it is with hardware. Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? [1] tells us that ZFS on Linux verion 0.6.3 supports kernels 2.6.26 - 3.16. Cool, apparently they even test it with Debian kernels :) Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. So this is a rather new feature. How reliable and how well does it work? But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) I know --- and I don't require RAID-5. What I require is what RAID-5 provides, i. e. redundancy without wasting as many disks as other RAID levels. I also like the better performance of hardware RAID compared to software RAID. IIRC, ZFS would provide efficient redundancy and be safer than a RAID controller because of it's checksumming. I'd have to try it out to see what kind of performance degradation or gain it would bring about. They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? Why don't they? -- Hallowed are the Debians! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/874mva3wdg@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems (was: Re: lvm: creating a snapshot)
http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html#WhatKernelVersionsAreSupported On October 10, 2014 9:20:50 PM EDT, lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org writes: I'm having very good results using their repo and DKMS system to build support into kernel modules. It's very easy to set up. I'm using it with Linux 3.2.0. Does it work with Debians 3.16 kernels? The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? They need to get these license issues fixed ... -- Hallowed are the Debians! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738avv1u5.fsf...@yun.yagibdah.de
Re: alternative file systems
On 10/10/2014 10:20 PM, lee wrote: The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? They need to get these license issues fixed ... There's a userland ZFS package (via Fuse) available in debian in the zfs-fuse package. It should be pretty much independent of kernel versions. -- The two most beautiful words in the English language are Cheque Enclosed. -- Dorothy Parker Eduardo M KALINOWSKI edua...@kalinowski.com.br -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/54393640.9010...@kalinowski.com.br
Re: alternative file systems (was: Re: lvm: creating a snapshot)
Hi. On Sat, 11 Oct 2014 03:20:50 +0200 lee l...@yagibdah.de wrote: The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? ZFS is out-of-tree kernel module. It *will* break sooner or later. Every out-of-tree module does. Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? [1] tells us that ZFS on Linux verion 0.6.3 supports kernels 2.6.26 - 3.16. Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? A correct guess. A recommended minimum is kernel 3.14 - [2]. But, ZFS won't allow you to make a conventional RAID5 either :) They need to get these license issues fixed ... Back in the old days CDDL was chosen by Sun especially so that this license issue would *never* be fixed. Currently Oracle could re-license ZFS to anything they want, including GPL-compatible license, but why would *they* do it? [1] http://zfsonlinux.org/faq.html [2] http://marc.merlins.org/perso/btrfs/post_2014-03-23_Btrfs-Raid5-Status.html Reco -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/20141011200842.20d2fb87091c4dbf160ca...@gmail.com
alternative file systems (was: Re: lvm: creating a snapshot)
John Holland jholl...@vin-dit.org writes: I'm having very good results using their repo and DKMS system to build support into kernel modules. It's very easy to set up. I'm using it with Linux 3.2.0. Does it work with Debians 3.16 kernels? The license of ZFS makes it impossible to be part of the kernel per se. The DKMS system is well known for supporting kernel modules for video and wireless hardware among others. So there isn't really any way to tell whether it works or not? Which kernel version is ZFS based on/for? Btrfs wouldn't let me do RAID-5 --- perhaps 3.2 kernels are too old for that? They need to get these license issues fixed ... -- Hallowed are the Debians! -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-user-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/8738avv1u5.fsf...@yun.yagibdah.de
