
ZFS on Linux 0.7.13 - turrini
https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/releases/tag/zfs-0.7.13
======
jamesblonde
I am still waiting for the 0.8 release with the killer feature of encryption-
at-rest. They take their time, but what they do is so important, it has to be
right.

~~~
qalmakka
I've been using it on Arch Linux since mid-2017, and it's amazing. Much easier
and more flexible to set up than LUKS/GELI. I hope FreeBSD will get Datto's
encryption soon when they switch to ZoF (their ZoL fork)

~~~
freshm087
That _much_ easier than typing "geli init", and "zpool create"? :)

~~~
qalmakka
No, it's not easier but it's vastly more convenient and flexible. You can
encrypt each dataset with different keys, and ZFS allows you to unlock them on
import or whenever you want to. You can send and receive them while encrypted.
Also ZFS encryption means that I can finally encrypt external HDDs that I
share between Linux and FreeBSD without having to resort to ugly hacks.

------
flyinghamster
I'm still awaiting official TRIM support for SSDs. Last I checked, that was
still a work in progress but coming close to release.

Also along that line, there's also work going on to make L2ARC persistent
across reboots (which would be wonderful for starting up VMs hosted on zvols).

~~~
nielsole
I heard that recent SSD s don't really rely on trim so it doesn't really
matter, does it?

~~~
Dylan16807
ZFS needs double digits of free space to be happy. SSDs need double digits of
zeroed space to be happy. Overlapping these requires TRIM.

~~~
temptemptemp111
Hey, I'm curious, would you mind turning 'showdead' on and replying to my
comment here? I'm shadowbanned on here and would sometimes actually like
replies in discussion with interesting comments like yours. Thanks.

------
unmole
From the release notes, it seems like a normal point release. I'm not seeing
anything particularly noteworthy but this has hit the front page for some
reason. What am I missing?

~~~
eddyg
More context: [https://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2](https://marc.info/?l=linux-
kernel&m=154722999728768&w=2)

> 5.0 removes the ability from non-GPL modules to use the FPU or SIMD
> instructions

~~~
josteink
That’s a pretty good reason to stay on 4.x IMO. Talk about shooting yourself
in the foot.

Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to
not ruin their own packages.

Also...

> My tolerance for ZFS is pretty non-existant.

Greg seems like a really pragmatic, nice and agreeable chap. Bet he’s a big
hit at parties.

~~~
Conan_Kudo
> Optionally, we may expect distros like Ubuntu simply reverse that change to
> not ruin their own packages.

If they want to earn the ire of the Linux kernel developers, sure. But they
won't do that, especially if they employ kernel developers. That's a scummy
thing to do.

~~~
Dylan16807
It is complete bull to claim that loading and saving the FPU state makes a
piece of code inherently derivative of GPL code such that it must itself be
GPL. Calling that bluff may draw ire but it is not scummy.

------
fxfan
Which of zfs and btrfs is better on Linux? And which of the two works better
with Windows (both have github drivers)? I'm looking to use on a personal
computer on a partition shared between Linux and Windows

~~~
rocqua
From my research:

ZFS is more stable, has the downside of not allowing expansion of volumes, and
has the issue of not being upstreamed.

BTRfs has the option to expand volumes, is native to Linux, but has a wiff of
unstability. Most notably with the persisting raid 5 write hole.

I haven't found a good choice yet. Though I think I'd go btrfs at the moment.

~~~
tomatocracy
Zfs does allow pools to be expanded by adding vdevs.

What it doesn’t allow is for raid sets to be expanded by replacing with larger
disks one at a time. This can however be done with mirrored sets. Add new
larger discs to the mirror set, wait for resilvering, remove older smaller
discs, done.

0.8 will also bring the ability to remove vdevs so effectively shrink a pool
through a similar (but slightly different) process.

~~~
mbreese
But even though you can add vdevs, it doesn’t rebalance the mirror. This means
your entire pool, albeit larger, is still slower.

(Unless this is a change that will be brought about in 0.8, I haven’t followed
that closely).

------
gtirloni
At this point, what's Oracle getting from not making ZFS GPL?

They have their own RHEL derivative, would it make life easier for them as
well (having an external community committed to keeping ZFS in the kernel
tree)?

~~~
pickle-wizard
In my opinion, it is because they are freaking Orcale, they don't do anything
for free. Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime. Some that
has been free for over 20 years.

I really hate to say this, but I wish IBM had bought Sun instead of Oracle.
Even better I really wish Sun had managed to pivot and stay an independent
company.

~~~
pron
> Heck they recently started charging for the Java runtime.

On the contrary, they've open sourced the entire JDK for the first time ever,
and are now offering the same JDK either completely free or with paid support,
rather than the mixed free/commercial JDK as before. (I work at Oracle on
OpenJDK, but speak only for myself)

~~~
_emacsomancer_
Though I still run into software which doesn't like OpenJDK, complaining that
the jar file was compiled with a newer version (and I have the latest OpenJDK
version) which I assume means it wants the Oracle Java SE application.

~~~
pron
It depends on which version you're using. As of JDK 11, OpenJDK and Oracle
Java SE are the same.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
I'm on OpenJDK 11.0, but I still get a "...compiled by a more recent version
of the Java Runtime (class file version 53.0), this version of the Java
Runtime only recognizes class file versions up to 52.0..." error.

~~~
pron
JDK 11 supports class file version up to and including 55 (either OpenJDK or
Oracle JDK, which is the same JDK under a different license).

~~~
_emacsomancer_
Hmm...I wonder if the Java .jar in question is doing something funky, since I
am running v11.

------
cracauer
I still have a bad bug with those versions. Anyone else?
[https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8396](https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/8396)

Basically, when serving NFS from a Linux-ZFS the client can read/write/seek
fine, but on-demand paging sometimes fails (the same way it is supposed to
fail when the file has been deleted server-side, but without any activity on
the server).

So for example if you /usr is NFS emacs startup results in a bus error. The
error rate increases with server uptime.

I tested ext2fs with the same linux kernel on the server and same clients -
problem goes away. I use about the same ZFS version serving the same files
from FreeBSD-current, error goes away.

I cannot be the only one seeing this?

------
jmcqk6
Does anyone know of a good practical guide for basic administration of ZFS on
linux?

~~~
oneguysomewhere
[https://pthree.org/2012/12/14/zfs-administration-part-ix-
cop...](https://pthree.org/2012/12/14/zfs-administration-part-ix-copy-on-
write/) Here is a good one I've used.

------
meruru
I wonder if all the work to make ZFS compatible with Linux will help make it
more portable to other platforms as well. I really want to be able to use it
on OpenBSD, but the prospects were very low last time I checked.

~~~
laumars
The recent(ish) comment from FreeBSD seemed to suggest it doesn't. If I recall
correctly they are switching to ZoL because it receives more frequent bug
fixes but they expect to have just as much work porting each update to FreeBSD
as they currently do with the Illumos builds.

~~~
sureaboutthis
FreeBSD isn't "switching" to ZoL but it's a consolidation of effort as the
FreeBSD related personnel come on board to ZoL.

~~~
laumars
Right...I get I was condensing the facts somewhat for the sake of brevity but
your expanded point isn't contradicting what I said. The end result is FreeBSD
are migrating over to the ZoL code base.

I'm guessing from the way you're spinning things that you're not ok with this
switch? Personally I don't care where FreeBSD pull their ZFS sources from as
long as it's stable - and I have full confidence in them that it will be.

------
gigatexal
Anyone benchmark the affect the 5.0 kernel vector disabled stuff has?

------
zmix
Wrong title! Should be "ZFS on Linux (or ZoL) 0.7.13 Released". The "real" ZFS
is still under Oracle's hand and the spinoff is OpenZFS.

~~~
_emacsomancer_
But OpenZFS is the one that matters now, so usually when people say ZFS, they
actually mean OpenZFS.

------
freddie_mercury
9 years old, with 70 releases, and still not good enough for a 1.0 release,
huh? Guess I'll wait until they think it is ready for production.....

~~~
laumars
Firstly this is ZoL, not ZFS.

And secondly version numbers are often a meaningless gauge of when something
is production ready. In any production environment you'd need to thoroughly
test any new technology (or even point releases of existing tech) before
deploying to prod because regression bugs and undocumented behaviour is a real
thing.

As an aside, I've been running ZFS since shortly after it's release and have
ran it across 4 distinct operating systems in that time. It's honestly been
one of the best pieces of engineering I've used in that time. To the extent
that ZFS has saved me from total data loss (ignoring, for the moment, backups)
on at least two separate occasions.

~~~
freddie_mercury
9 years and 70 releases is referring to ZoL.

I use ZFS.

I am mocking open source developers' terror of calling something a 1.0
release.

At the same time they say release numbers aren't an indication of quality
their actions tell us that release numbers matter a lot and that's why they
are scared of calling something a 1.0 release.

~~~
vetinari
> why they are scared of calling something a 1.0 release.

Given that ZoL doesn't support reflink (ficlone/ficlonerange; see also
[https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405](https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/issues/405)),
and that ZFS is a CoW filesystem, that's pretty good reason not to have 1.0
release.

In other words, there is no way no use a key feauture, without enabling
deduplication (that's exactly that feature, that requires heaps of RAM).

