hw writes:
On Wed, 2022-11-09 at 14:29 +0100, didier gaumet wrote: > Le 09/11/2022 à 12:41, hw a écrit :
[...]
> I am really not so well aware of ZFS state but my impression was that: > - FUSE implementation of ZoL (ZFS on Linux) is deprecated and that, > Ubuntu excepted (classic module?), ZFS is now integrated by a DKMS module Hm that could be. Debian doesn't seem to have it as a module.
As already mentioned by others, zfs-dkms is readily available in the contrib section along with zfsutils-linux. Here is what I noted down back when I installed it:
https://masysma.net/37/zfs_commands_shortref.xhtmlI have been using ZFS on Linux on Debian since end of 2020 without any issues. In fact, the dkms-based approach has run much more reliably than my previous experiences with out-of-tree modules would have suggested...
My setup works with a mirrored zpool and no deduplication, I did not need nor test anything else yet.
> - *BSDs integrate directly ZFS because there are no licences conflicts > - *BSDs nowadays have departed from old ZFS code and use the same source > code stack as Linux (OpenZFS) > - Linux distros don't directly integrate ZFS because they generally > consider there are licences conflicts. The notable exception being > Ubuntu that considers that after legal review the situation is clear and > there is no licence conflicts.
[...]
broke something. Arch is apparently for machosists, and I don't wantderivatives, especially not Ubuntu, and that leaves only Debian. I don't wantDebian either because when they introduced their brokenarch, they managed to make it so that NVIDIA drivers didn't work anymore with no fix in sight and broke other stuff as well, and you can't let your users down like that. But what's the alternative?
Nvidia drivers have been working for me in all releases from Debian 6 to 10 both inclusive. I did not have any need for them on Debian 11 yet, since I have switched to an AMD card for my most recent system.
However, Debian has apparently bad ZFS support (apparently still only Gentoo actually supports it), so I'd go with btrfs. Now that's gona suck because
You can use ZFS on Debian (see link above). Of course it remains your choice whether you want to trust your data to the older, but less-well-integrated technology (ZFS) or to the newer, but more easily integrated technology (BTRFS).
I'd have to use mdadm to create a RAID5 (or use the hardware RAID but that isn't
AFAIK BTRFS also includes some integrated RAID support such that you do not necessarily need to pair it with mdadm. It is advised against using for RAID 5 or 6 even in most recent Linux kernels, though:
https://btrfs.readthedocs.io/en/latest/btrfs-man5.html#raid56-status-and-recommended-practicesRAID 5 and 6 have their own issues you should be aware of even when running them with the time-proven and reliable mdadm stack. You can find a lot of interesting results by searching for “RAID5 considered harmful” online. This one is the classic that does not seem to make it to the top results, though:
https://www.baarf.dk/BAARF/RAID5_versus_RAID10.txtIf you want to go with mdadm (irrespective of RAID level), you might also consider running ext4 and trade the complexity and features of the advanced file systems for a good combination of stability and support.
fun after I've seen the hardware RAID refusing to rebuild a volume after a failed disk was replaced) and put btrfs on that because btrfs doesn't even support RAID5.
YMMV Linux-Fan öö
Attachment:
pgp3yKQaQllz5.pgp
Description: PGP signature