From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.4 (2020-01-24) on inbox.vuxu.org X-Spam-Level: X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.1 required=5.0 tests=DKIM_SIGNED,DKIM_VALID, DKIM_VALID_AU,FREEMAIL_FROM,MAILING_LIST_MULTI,NICE_REPLY_A, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 4618 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2021 15:46:26 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Feb 2021 15:46:26 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 7E3C69C9B1; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:46:24 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 88D209C893; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:45:55 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="A+l9qLs/"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id C98F39C893; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:45:52 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ot1-f41.google.com (mail-ot1-f41.google.com [209.85.210.41]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 737CA9C0A7 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 01:45:51 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ot1-f41.google.com with SMTP id d7so3830026otf.3 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:45:51 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=subject:to:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent:mime-version :in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=2PLMKJXZYfEozcBJf6sDX3hdRAFZS1LKgyZyuwC8cuk=; b=A+l9qLs/dDBi+reIfP67TglFUMaPyA1mjwbUDCMOnyvkCqmYk1Ee3gCjK716acDiLw TaajE6CR5H65x3TVntHAKHYTesGqP4Xwt0P2OMPDfbhiCiSvcvMhPGP3YqWSFAFByMsr ZI75TitghbdnAXrtXHdrsX0jLwOz2/iDjydyLTOX2K+41xXbc4BryQAli2x3ZKBfR6he TAByxI9YCuQzIse/bbeALV1XEQXJN6FjGfdBfpAb03vxqPmQH74R0CgthtayIlHtHV07 suyZ/T04sXbY14qX0lWcuotJNT5+3Vtam6WlMIFHHTcBSB0wtjZGmMc49M6F3mqFf7tc iamA== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=2PLMKJXZYfEozcBJf6sDX3hdRAFZS1LKgyZyuwC8cuk=; b=NoIzo6GpjalKhZBlV3G/3HPki7D2ol6DgeAFPjPryThLjkT0pAJjAXgWMWt4uCbOQr VsnUAPSizSL/r8a/kc4fwGU7U/u0tcv1zdWgT9KndnFQsUDB4YdS0CAbcjntgoZC/Pqv C6JbYnbH/wgoV7Dmkna6PhgBSLQWR3/T/RM5mvY1BnDuleeMkbR8EV3FsdlUjtJXYFCw ynj7eBKUFK0cfATsleHiiZ+39ZtLZWtj7GwIHAUBWsegCU1+8aBUwN7S7BGMW6XZXLJV esI5IJiQ+k8fF35CdQ96tyNJJvQE7oCfZ1+qhSoSkFbECyKHU9uzF/rLKqYd/lwMbJk/ 4v4g== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533cFD/2ZNnhggDRURK/Sp0ipDkwotyxbEVaVq/LNxYqeKwQLRMV 2x5+pRNRiLMFaQ3vnp+ntsQaHJPycojgQA== X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJwGwxt04Vl8l4pqD3zrxE2BC+eCHNa7Q4t2lPJGK4d8RyUcNywtxzmZkN4uTRH4MkNZgdLRMw== X-Received: by 2002:a9d:303:: with SMTP id 3mr1797666otv.301.1612453550327; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:45:50 -0800 (PST) Received: from terra.local ([2001:49d0:142:1500:1d21:45cf:6041:b6a8]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id m7sm1180207otq.33.2021.02.04.07.45.49 for (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 04 Feb 2021 07:45:49 -0800 (PST) To: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org References: <202101301950.10UJoWeA456408@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210130222854.GN4227@mcvoy.com> <20210130231119.GA33905@eureka.lemis.com> <20210131022500.GU4227@mcvoy.com> From: Will Senn Message-ID: <9504e27d-d976-9681-6b97-aa87d124fc43@gmail.com> Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 09:45:48 -0600 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.14; rv:78.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/78.7.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US Subject: Re: [TUHS] FreeBSD behind the times? (was: Favorite unix design principles?) X-BeenThere: tuhs@minnie.tuhs.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26 Precedence: list List-Id: The Unix Heritage Society mailing list List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" On 2/3/21 11:43 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2021, Larry McVoy wrote: > > [ Usual insightful...  insights ] > >> If you like ZFS you don't understand operating systems design.  I do. > ... > > There's no way that I'd use ZFS; lose a block in an ordinary file, > well, you now have a hole (but not in the file-system sense); lose a > block in a compressed system, well... > ZFS needn't be compressed, and I don't generally do compression or encryption unless required by law, so I can't speak from personal experience on those use cases (others, far more experienced can). I do know that it's truly a pain to recover from issues with either. In response to the negative vibes around ZFS. I've never lost a file (or a piece of a file) in 10+ years of using ZFS. I get the feeling we may not be talking about the same ZFS. My experience is with the ZFS FreeBSD comes with, not the version that Oracle owns. Perhaps the info is a little out of date for the naysayers. In my experience, using ZFS is fairly transparent and simple to use - no partitioning to deal with, no need to worry about generating filesystems, none of that - add your disks to a pool, choose your RAID levels and it gets mounted, no fuss. I've lost plenty of disks along the way, but ZFS just keeps on chugging along nicely until I replace them and then rebuilds the arrays, again, no fuss other than replacing the hardware. In terms of massive system updates and such, I just snapshot the environment (a near instantaneous operation) before making significant changes to my system, that might break things and when they do break (and they do, more often than I'd like), I just rollback. man bectl. Painless (and I mean painless, hundreds of times, or mor). I'm sure it all sounds scifi, but it's my experience along with plenty of other folks, and this ZFS sucks thread seems to be FUD to me - ala Microsoft vs Linux, or at best informed hypothetical speculations - reminds me of an if statement conversation I had online in the early 1990's where one group of folks claimed that braces worked a certain way, based on the then current standard, and another group of folks (I'd be on this side of things), tested the theory with a host of compilers, observed the functions effects, shook their heads and wondered why it didn't match up with the theory, and said it worked another. Who was right? I'm still not entirely sure, from a philosophical perspective, but I have since coded my if statements according to my environment, not the standards. As I mentioned in the prior thread, I've lost my share of files and file systems (many, many times since 1993 when I started with linux - 0.9 kernel, slackware, then redhat, then debian, now mint) with ext3/4, and btrfs, though, and the only recovery was backup (a time intensive process). I really don't see the logic behind the negative arguments. Don't like it, fine, say it and live it. Claim it sucks? Then, back it up with a real-world, current experience and I'll cede the point - I'll keep using ZFS though :). I want to be clear, I don't dislike Linux. I don't think FreeBSD is superior. I like both. I use both... daily. With enough prep and planning, my linux environment is similarly recoverable, but with freebsd, the prep and planning requires a lot less time and effort. Personally, I heart linux Mint - it's based on Debian and Ubuntu - is a straightforward install, works well, has zfs (not yet on boot), has timeshift (lovely piece of software), and can be quite pretty. Vive la difference. Will