From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Received: from tb-mx1.topicbox.com (localhost.local [127.0.0.1]) by tb-mx1.topicbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0F94ECF3089 for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:53:28 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gea@napp-it.org) Received: from tb-mx1.topicbox.com (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by tb-mx1.topicbox.com (Authentication Milter) with ESMTP id C1210565933; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:53:28 -0400 ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; cv=none; d=topicbox.com; s=arcseal; t= 1725623608; b=oxSF0Eqo9jD6vVRRsaamlwnsOflnbsa8fgJN+LLwyf7+eUOi+x ySKfHki47bpyunui6/ipyybrIJ+8YUHT636NU07m3wrUcLixu2jPkiXWGIyhjubD xNUdIUssrapKU5KbWZmbehNXGdzk6+hzC+HE0jd90ztjDr0NZ6IerFOppKel95HG ySzQG3OQrawALAsaqwggpByPTTQLesUBFdc4u+UO3DGsIHSxwSLsr5famty0X4J7 O4zjLzyty2LgUTr9pBeE1Xy3sUm/uZuCkR8ab5huLIDnp8/ZomMY8N9pdcvoqpiG 7X8sEb/wSETX/wAg+g/otR9j530gjRJKG/ZQ== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d= topicbox.com; h=content-type:message-id:date:mime-version:from :subject:reply-to:references:to:in-reply-to; s=arcseal; t= 1725623608; bh=E3ylC8n1dxmq/AzbUJ3wsAo9aFc5kkHJLsC+5BgjL08=; b=O VDFlC6mOCPIHEoOJKBz06tDUUpqhLK8OuRCRpZ8bnjUn9pqpGqB0eSCbntkJXwpO ITDVkZLzIuDa192cXxgg54jBKgIGhQEKvFmzPqYvBnlO7NJ/g5PCZQX68qIme5fq 1EXJtx0VwoohsXOaVtC/pQ86ID1FPE2C2dg6waWmtdxxyy14Fal/dxhrzuS1F0Cc 7ulpCvYLTbn/W9Iofi7d7HletXXblVFt3S2sLUmX6mWaHQ5Hz4aiaBPWWS7nz4Eo FTh6ZyclG/b/PxAzUaUhKOKoj99ZSN2KsPrT9a8T0CEfxDv5+x/Pg/c2JBa37Kyg wIU1rPdHlItlk35FHeubw== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; tb-mx1.topicbox.com; arc=none (no signatures found); bimi=skipped (DMARC did not pass); dkim=none (no signatures found); dmarc=none policy.published-domain-policy=none policy.applied-disposition=none policy.evaluated-disposition=none (p=none,d=none,d.eval=none) policy.policy-from=p header.from=napp-it.org; iprev=pass smtp.remote-ip=80.241.59.204 (mout-u-204.mailbox.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=gea@napp-it.org smtp.helo=mout-u-204.mailbox.org; x-aligned-from=pass (Address match); x-me-sender=none; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=mout-u-204.mailbox.org policy.ptr=mout-u-204.mailbox.org; x-return-mx=pass header.domain=napp-it.org policy.is_org=yes (MX Records found: mx03.secure-mailgate.com,mx04.secure-mailgate.com); x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=napp-it.org policy.is_org=yes (MX Records found: mx03.secure-mailgate.com,mx04.secure-mailgate.com); x-tls=pass smtp.version=TLSv1.2 smtp.cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 smtp.bits=256/256; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 Authentication-Results: tb-mx1.topicbox.com; arc=none (no signatures found); bimi=skipped (DMARC did not pass); dkim=none (no signatures found); dmarc=none policy.published-domain-policy=none policy.applied-disposition=none policy.evaluated-disposition=none (p=none,d=none,d.eval=none) policy.policy-from=p header.from=napp-it.org; iprev=pass smtp.remote-ip=80.241.59.204 (mout-u-204.mailbox.org); spf=none smtp.mailfrom=gea@napp-it.org smtp.helo=mout-u-204.mailbox.org; x-aligned-from=pass (Address match); x-me-sender=none; x-ptr=pass smtp.helo=mout-u-204.mailbox.org policy.ptr=mout-u-204.mailbox.org; x-return-mx=pass header.domain=napp-it.org policy.is_org=yes (MX Records found: mx03.secure-mailgate.com,mx04.secure-mailgate.com); x-return-mx=pass smtp.domain=napp-it.org policy.is_org=yes (MX Records found: mx03.secure-mailgate.com,mx04.secure-mailgate.com); x-tls=pass smtp.version=TLSv1.2 smtp.cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 smtp.bits=256/256; x-vs=clean score=-100 state=0 X-ME-VSCause: gggruggvucftvghtrhhoucdtuddrgeeftddrudeiuddggeeiucetufdoteggodetrfdotf fvucfrrhhofhhilhgvmecuhfgrshhtofgrihhlpdggtfgfnhhsuhgsshgtrhhisggvpdfu rfetoffkrfgpnffqhgenuceurghilhhouhhtmecufedttdenucesvcftvggtihhpihgvnh htshculddquddttddmnecujfgurheptgfkffgghffurhhfvfgjsegrtderredttdejnecu hfhrohhmpedfghgvrgesnhgrphhpqdhithdrohhrghdfuceoghgvrgesnhgrphhpqdhith drohhrgheqnecuggftrfgrthhtvghrnheptdegieegffefgedvfeegkeelgeejvdevleeh vddukedvgfejhfehgeehfeejtddunecukfhppeektddrvdeguddrheelrddvtdegpddvtd dtudemieejtgemvddthedtmegsvdefudemgeeiheemmedvtddvnecuvehluhhsthgvrhfu ihiivgeptdenucfrrghrrghmpehinhgvthepkedtrddvgedurdehledrvddtgedphhgvlh hopehmohhuthdquhdqvddtgedrmhgrihhlsghogidrohhrghdpmhgrihhlfhhrohhmpeeo ghgvrgesnhgrphhpqdhithdrohhrgheqpdhnsggprhgtphhtthhopedupdhrtghpthhtoh epoeguihhstghushhssehlihhsthhsrdhilhhluhhmohhsrdhorhhgqe X-ME-VSScore: -100 X-ME-VSCategory: clean Received-SPF: none (napp-it.org: No applicable sender policy available) receiver=tb-mx1.topicbox.com; identity=mailfrom; envelope-from="gea@napp-it.org"; helo=mout-u-204.mailbox.org; client-ip=80.241.59.204 Received: from mout-u-204.mailbox.org (mout-u-204.mailbox.org [80.241.59.204]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by tb-mx1.topicbox.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 07:53:27 -0400 (EDT) (envelope-from gea@napp-it.org) Received: from smtp202.mailbox.org (smtp202.mailbox.org [IPv6:2001:67c:2050:b231:465::202]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by mout-u-204.mailbox.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4X0ZPH5j3yz9txG for ; Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:53:23 +0200 (CEST) Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="------------byXDHOqvtEIKe4Dp8qtfhkGI" Message-ID: <2bbc17be-ebb2-4b90-98ef-b804fa57b334@napp-it.org> Date: Fri, 6 Sep 2024 13:53:21 +0200 MIME-Version: 1.0 From: "gea@napp-it.org" Subject: Illumos future and compatibility with Open-ZFS Reply-To: illumos-discuss References: <17228910420.eEB8eC.492388@composer.illumos.topicbox.com> <17229221550.caeC24Bb.35283@composer.illumos.topicbox.com> <17229261750.4b34C5Ff.10506@composer.illumos.topicbox.com> <17229544470.58aA.943111@composer.illumos.topicbox.com> Content-Language: en-US To: illumos-discuss In-Reply-To: <17229544470.58aA.943111@composer.illumos.topicbox.com> X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: 4X0ZPH5j3yz9txG Topicbox-Policy-Reasoning: allow: sender is a member Topicbox-Message-UUID: a4c12ada-6c46-11ef-aeda-df495ca73ac4 This is a multi-part message in MIME format. --------------byXDHOqvtEIKe4Dp8qtfhkGI Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit *There are very good reasons to prefer Illumos ZFS over Open-ZFS like* - Stability especially with OmniOS and a bloody,stable,long term stable and a repository for each - Easyness there is one current Illumos with one current ZFS not the versions chaos of Open-ZFS with a douzen of distributions, each with its own problems and update paths to Open-ZFS newest. - Efficiency the deep OS Integration makes ZFS on Illumos very resource efficient - Services like Kernel SMB or Comstar iSCSI especially the kernelbased SMB server is for me the only thinkable alternative to a Windows Server when it comes to ACL compatibility or simplicity. SAMBA is a pain compared to the kernelbased SMB. *But now the great BUT* Open-ZFS is where the music plays with a lot of new features like ZSTD, Draid, Raid-Z Expansion or Fast Dedup and more to come. Lack of them means that you can no longer import a current Open-ZFS pool in Illumos and more important, these are killer features in some cases and therefor a criteria to use or not to use Illumos. If you look at the flavours of "Open-ZFS" with independent repositories, there are mainly three: 1. Open-ZFS Master (BSD, Linux), currently 2.2.6 no longer a common roof for "Open" ZFS development but the place where development happens 2. Based on an older Open-ZFS and incompatible to newest Open-ZFS Illumos and Qnap 3. Open-ZFS on Windows (and OSX), beta/release candidates This is fork of Open-ZFS that is updated to Open-ZFS Master from release candidate to release candidate. While I suppose Jorgen Lundman (maintainer) originally planned a full integration of Windows ZFS directly into Open-ZFS, it seems that he now intends to use Open-ZFS simply as upstream, just like Illumos was upstream for a long time for BSD and Linux. * I want to ask.* When I look at the Illumos Issue tracker, I see mainly small fixes, hardly new features does not matter regarding Illumos services or Open-ZFS features. I suppose number of devs is limited. *What is the future idea of Illumos? * -Be like Qnap and do not care about Open-ZFS and add one or the other new feature from time to time? -Try something like BSD or Windows or OSX (switch to Open-ZFS as full upstream)? I know a switch to Open-ZFS as upstream is not easy and can last and I am not even sure if it is really wanted or possible with current resources. But maybe this is the only option to make Illumos future proof? Gea --------------byXDHOqvtEIKe4Dp8qtfhkGI Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

There are very good reasons to prefer Illumos ZFS over Open-ZFS like

- Stability
especially with OmniOS and a bloody,stable,long term stable and a repository for each

- Easyness
there is one current Illumos with one current ZFS
not the versions chaos of Open-ZFS with a douzen of distributions, each with its own problems and update paths to Open-ZFS newest.

- Efficiency
the deep OS Integration makes ZFS on Illumos very resource efficient

- Services like Kernel SMB or Comstar iSCSI
especially the kernelbased SMB server is for me the only thinkable alternative to a Windows Server when it comes to ACL compatibility or simplicity. SAMBA is a pain compared to the kernelbased SMB.


But now the great BUT

Open-ZFS is where the music plays with a lot of new features like ZSTD, Draid, Raid-Z Expansion or Fast Dedup and more to come. Lack of them means that you can no longer import a current Open-ZFS pool in Illumos and more important, these are killer features in some cases and therefor a criteria to use or not to use Illumos.

If you look at the flavours of "Open-ZFS" with independent repositories, there are mainly three:

1. Open-ZFS Master (BSD, Linux), currently 2.2.6
no longer a common roof for "Open" ZFS development but the place where development happens

2. Based on an older Open-ZFS and incompatible to newest Open-ZFS
Illumos and Qnap

3. Open-ZFS on Windows (and OSX), beta/release candidates
This is fork of Open-ZFS that is updated to Open-ZFS Master from release candidate to release candidate. While I suppose Jorgen Lundman (maintainer) originally planned a full integration of Windows ZFS directly into Open-ZFS, it seems that he now intends to use Open-ZFS simply as upstream, just like Illumos was upstream for a long time for BSD and Linux.


I want to ask.
When I look at the Illumos Issue tracker, I see mainly small fixes, hardly new features does not matter regarding Illumos services or Open-ZFS features. I suppose number of devs is limited.  

What is the future idea of Illumos?
-Be like Qnap and do not care about Open-ZFS and add one or the other new feature from time to time?
-Try something like BSD or Windows or OSX (switch to Open-ZFS as full upstream)?

I know a switch to Open-ZFS as upstream is not easy and can last and I am not even sure if it is really wanted or possible with current resources. But maybe this is the only option to make Illumos future proof?

Gea


--------------byXDHOqvtEIKe4Dp8qtfhkGI--