From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 0FFD215838C for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:57:06 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id E743E2BC076; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: from mail-lf1-f49.google.com (mail-lf1-f49.google.com [209.85.167.49]) (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 pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 6AB6DE2A8B for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 17:57:00 +0000 (UTC) Received: by mail-lf1-f49.google.com with SMTP id 2adb3069b0e04-5101cd91017so6132762e87.2 for ; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:57:00 -0800 (PST) X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1706723818; x=1707328618; h=content-transfer-encoding:to:subject:message-id:date:from :in-reply-to:references:mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc :subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=EZQRgS9YEcS7YEbkviJvjm67flP3LxztGxAqVE5IGu0=; b=rEyCbw3p+yZNjBx5Hkpnwx/HxAeeN05pah7MHRKVzqYKGlKFr5YBPXmTU3wPoBVpMj 2pJUwMAv1OWa80qTMKNwwOIRlVsrSwZmNN3TaKx5m2pF+a7bQGo3YRgGTiF0LNBC87mt 9QBzA261WTPUKoa4t1jhmeImNk69KyNCY7eDXUWWCvy/8itpTIcTLIVUmsRzJfsSvayr Sp4xZiXGw0pPoPsmiOZkZNiJwEcFfj7N1BJPBHvDQqGx1p7ynYwyfEKpr/kLg+BNkIU3 eqhp24WMGZUIat4M7DyPXqUK7CGhU4YCvXJFMYiKGSpZEu1BNJD/237VJJoZTOJUQ48p crKQ== X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YzRA7yBMqJzyivD8BIPzH/clavcnWToGf+H0lbcGJFUzm72e6hd llf14mDHFuHHNiOaYekECdKgUh/O6U7+nAxDnu1lI2pprea++I4ogWZEwfXGUExGCh15ei84rh7 RPekV8MAnSnWuSGFwaxZZW574G0LEuNh6 X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGel8F7fIm1Qq9vo45CElWgRCSNhkjTldpZToPCa8E8gl69hPRyQ273r4KvDr/inCLuu2Aw/QvylAkm+qMdbr8= X-Received: by 2002:a05:6512:447:b0:50e:7e55:1b0c with SMTP id y7-20020a056512044700b0050e7e551b0cmr161221lfk.27.1706723818208; Wed, 31 Jan 2024 09:56:58 -0800 (PST) Precedence: bulk List-Post: List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Subscribe: List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org X-Auto-Response-Suppress: DR, RN, NRN, OOF, AutoReply MIME-Version: 1.0 References: <8f5371a5-07af-456e-8517-cb9bb664fac4@youngman.org.uk> In-Reply-To: From: Rich Freeman Date: Wed, 31 Jan 2024 12:56:47 -0500 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme? To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org Content-Type: text/plain; charset="UTF-8" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Archives-Salt: b0fd4f9c-0c8b-4503-86f0-a864a2d3c051 X-Archives-Hash: c2c4f7e762269166bfe34ffe839f646f On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:40=E2=80=AFPM Thelma wr= ote: > > If zfs file system is superior to ext4 and it seems to it is. > Why hasn't it been adopted more widely in Linux? > The main barrier is that its license isn't GPL-compatible. It is FOSS, but the license was basically designed to keep it from being incorporated into the mainline kernel. The odd thing is that right now Oracle controls both ZFS and btrfs, with the latter doing mostly the same thing and being GPL-compatible, but it hasn't tended to be as stable. So we're in a really long transitional period to btrfs becoming as reliable. ZFS also cannot be shrunk as easily. I think that is something that has been improved more recently, but I'm not certain of the state of it. Also, bootloaders like grub aren't 100% compatible with all of its later features, and it isn't even clear in the docs which ones are and aren't supported. So it doesn't hurt to keep /boot off of zfs. I'm sure ext4 also performs better. It has to be faster to just overwrite a block in place than to remap the extents around the change, even if the latter is safer. I'd expect zfs to outperform ext4 with full data journaling though, which would have a comparable level of safety, assuming it isn't on RAID. I don't think there are any RAID implementations that do full write journaling to protect against the write hole problem, but those would obviously underperform zfs as well. --=20 Rich