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,HTML_MESSAGE,MAILING_LIST_MULTI, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no version=3.4.4 Received: (qmail 6766 invoked from network); 4 Feb 2021 16:05:04 -0000 Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (45.79.103.53) by inbox.vuxu.org with ESMTPUTF8; 4 Feb 2021 16:05:04 -0000 Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id 10C2C9C8F9; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 02:05:03 +1000 (AEST) Received: from minnie.tuhs.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id EBDA89C893; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 02:03:31 +1000 (AEST) Authentication-Results: minnie.tuhs.org; dkim=pass (2048-bit key; unprotected) header.d=gmail.com header.i=@gmail.com header.b="vFl64y8J"; dkim-atps=neutral Received: by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix, from userid 112) id D72399C893; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 02:03:28 +1000 (AEST) Received: from mail-ej1-f52.google.com (mail-ej1-f52.google.com [209.85.218.52]) by minnie.tuhs.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id A05089C0A7 for ; Fri, 5 Feb 2021 02:03:27 +1000 (AEST) Received: by mail-ej1-f52.google.com with SMTP id lg21so6251784ejb.3 for ; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 08:03:27 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20161025; h=mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date:message-id:subject:to :cc; bh=X006TZ0iqLXz/xHWiEfv1IctCfJHzYMfC/HO55F6fDI=; b=vFl64y8JjRfWhppZxk1eiHtTdlgJaPxKCXBJ+NiVqb2K2o4C+s69OxtTvhD4GUPd7M o4oslecuy6hXS9feJULlsTl5CuU7hRieuZNq0r8YtAIZ+IztyW4BZg66Gbkmmr1CmhVw LqyX6B23KB6kkM/FonomzGJiJipRAKz0monrsrGV+8sFXAvmQk4C5ZEVG4r5EDEWB7MB wAz6e3YjHHHziC00YqFS+AGPrGTxdFW6W97E6mTSYzcXM1JmHrSrXlRpXEAmWsEt1gBH 5euqudgL1zND7vP/9h+0dB9fGEW17elcUdt6dZEB/orj7Q34sXg2W91oIUXDp5/ytW6y Y+xQ== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:references:in-reply-to:from:date :message-id:subject:to:cc; bh=X006TZ0iqLXz/xHWiEfv1IctCfJHzYMfC/HO55F6fDI=; b=hkG1dc6QNHr4gTCTNqSONvOJE7Wv5ZS2i4NtWO854rNiSIXLAIm41coOh0EB7RwE9n g6jXC87VDWGdM2kVqB5dL7Gome+GKSHBgjrNwtaRnByZJPJeeLB66uFXg0rOoMcozYFL seTAoiU6uIjvFGv/nIsoYxPLYU0su6qOkh4o8fwzI35rIPlJZwSVAUgZ/v0kScIheRiN bLruQ0Eq8jI5ny0koGQTsHhS/86OnHzmVz/aCycngJjeNukt9m89x1QxzcbT/D/ZAM/7 8VqYJWZ70tyDQFkyvpGgYch2fuHXbFNbWXbvFJYQDqxVXrMtmJIsSwfazjnv1Im5hUOX aQag== X-Gm-Message-State: AOAM533ZwcV5RIbVopSre4CdH/G4osYJFRaiRwtSvsgVw7DKMtxTHBD7 NuTrDnhR+oG3NPjgQhKynV+BfBthyh/AfkQyMKg= X-Google-Smtp-Source: ABdhPJxJUis9I9nIl1tO99MoxMRmCZ24YzifkFAn+X+YMZ9mIeaOB71n+kMmqfM1QyRsYlnogyFOuORjRtXMCKrfhGc= X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:488:: with SMTP id f8mr6555921eja.311.1612454606089; Thu, 04 Feb 2021 08:03:26 -0800 (PST) MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <202101301950.10UJoWeA456408@darkstar.fourwinds.com> <20210130222854.GN4227@mcvoy.com> <20210130231119.GA33905@eureka.lemis.com> <20210131022500.GU4227@mcvoy.com> <9504e27d-d976-9681-6b97-aa87d124fc43@gmail.com> In-Reply-To: <9504e27d-d976-9681-6b97-aa87d124fc43@gmail.com> From: Henry Bent Date: Thu, 4 Feb 2021 11:03:14 -0500 Message-ID: To: Will Senn Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="00000000000003312105ba84d816" 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: , Cc: TUHS main list Errors-To: tuhs-bounces@minnie.tuhs.org Sender: "TUHS" --00000000000003312105ba84d816 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" I don't really know enough about filesystem internals to comment on the design one way or another. I can say that Oberlin College Computer Science switched to using ZFS with snapshots in 2008 or so (on Solaris 10) and it greatly simplified restoring from backups. Home directories had weekly snapshots taken, rolling over a month or two, and it was a godsend when a student (or a professor...) accidentally deleted something important. No more trawling through backup tapes by the admin to restore the file you wanted, it could easily be taken from an on-disk snapshot. Obviously it required a certain greater amount of disk space, but I contend that it was worth it. -Henry On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 10:47, Will Senn wrote: > 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 > > > > > --00000000000003312105ba84d816 Content-Type: text/html; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
I don't really know enough about filesystem inter= nals to comment on the design one way or another.=C2=A0 I can say that Ober= lin College Computer Science switched to using ZFS with snapshots in 2008 o= r so (on Solaris 10) and it greatly simplified restoring from backups.=C2= =A0 Home directories had weekly snapshots taken, rolling over a month or tw= o, and it was a godsend when a student (or a professor...) accidentally del= eted something important.=C2=A0 No more trawling through backup tapes by th= e admin to restore the file you wanted, it could easily be taken from an on= -disk snapshot.=C2=A0 Obviously it required a certain greater amount of dis= k space, but I contend that it was worth it.

-Henr= y

On Thu, 4 Feb 2021 at 10:47, Will Senn <will.senn@gmail.com> wrote:
On 2/3/21 11:43 PM, Dave Horsfall wrote: > On Sat, 30 Jan 2021, Larry McVoy wrote:
>
> [ Usual insightful...=C2=A0 insights ]
>
>> If you like ZFS you don't understand operating systems design.= =C2=A0 I do.
> ...
>
> There's no way that I'd use ZFS; lose a block in an ordinary f= ile,
> well, you now have a hole (but not in the file-system sense); lose a <= br> > 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 (o= r
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 <= br> 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, fro= m
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 fil= e
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. <= br> 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= 9;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




--00000000000003312105ba84d816--