From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970
Return-Path: <gentoo-user+bounces-150711-garchives=archives.gentoo.org@lists.gentoo.org>
Received: from lists.gentoo.org (pigeon.gentoo.org [208.92.234.80])
by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id 0763B1381F3
for <garchives@archives.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:32:29 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1])
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id BFA1AE0A6C;
Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:32:22 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail-qc0-f181.google.com (mail-qc0-f181.google.com [209.85.216.181])
(using TLSv1 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-RC4-SHA (128/128 bits))
(No client certificate requested)
by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B3526E0A60
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Tue, 17 Sep 2013 06:32:21 +0000 (UTC)
Received: by mail-qc0-f181.google.com with SMTP id q4so3254528qcx.40
for <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;
d=gmail.com; s=20120113;
h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to
:content-type;
bh=sauHmnLnf1UASEr0QYbPVO63ZVi0CPFTYhS/S13ELnM=;
b=fC+0wQZ+nVWxY/IZO4HsZbttSaQQjLgmBL7tn7WTHxdCrdoCB8sqsZmR59QY2rTRNJ
phIc2jIanZjGI0R2MzQj8xZ8lokUZHGSrG+xbUrDSWPhc025h6l8gOo1Gc352hk7QVSu
ZB9IRE3e0ya90EyDNvjpZ02d0KHCd/Hr1M1ia+pS/hMg5krLJL/29ga2FSQnj83g0fzB
FMDh9T9akIToQ8VLplBeycKZ1eHgE1ZrfDh/fcJYfH2sWei1qU/xB8QnfIz0pDK27jOi
SW0AuaUY2h32/V5CLc6gSIB/qUmAedjJMyZ/94/7ijTc9KmvNXlnHtVcjbvV9G1aDUPC
gLpg==
Precedence: bulk
List-Post: <mailto:gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Help: <mailto:gentoo-user+help@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+unsubscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Subscribe: <mailto:gentoo-user+subscribe@lists.gentoo.org>
List-Id: Gentoo Linux mail <gentoo-user.gentoo.org>
X-BeenThere: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
Reply-to: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Received: by 10.224.29.69 with SMTP id p5mr4054793qac.30.1379399540915; Mon,
16 Sep 2013 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.140.25.83 with HTTP; Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:32:20 -0700 (PDT)
In-Reply-To: <CAA2qdGXc3GsPg7PEVEjn_j4=VTBAZ_NEEV+9qh1t_D-rf1_MhA@mail.gmail.com>
References: <CAN0CFw0dkS=vCSXTPWyXDKOi=RVzKGEqXo56YiupvejfvJc1yQ@mail.gmail.com>
<523445F3.2040200@libertytrek.org>
<CAN0CFw3ez1VLfYcmGrnqH9P-rkD83EWFeZ96GQQhVeUNnn_=TQ@mail.gmail.com>
<CAA2qdGXc3GsPg7PEVEjn_j4=VTBAZ_NEEV+9qh1t_D-rf1_MhA@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Sep 2013 23:32:20 -0700
Message-ID: <CAN0CFw04o6d-hw8MUuyFtsH-A+fytxgDK6LVzMvap30=3mkdFg@mail.gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [gentoo-user] {OT} Need a new server
From: Grant <emailgrant@gmail.com>
To: Gentoo mailing list <gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
X-Archives-Salt: f0dac5d0-1ed6-4f68-a784-1a57cdddf093
X-Archives-Hash: 2fbf45071bcde7af7264de55526e47ac
>>>> Is the Gentoo Software RAID + LVM guide the best place for RAID
>>>> install info if I'm not using LVM and I'll have a hardware RAID
>>>> controller?
>>>
>>> Not ready to take the ZFS plunge? That would greatly reduce the complexity
>>> of RAID+LVM, since ZFS best practice is to set your hardware raid controller
>>> to JBOD mode and let ZFS take care of the RAID - and no LVM required (ZFS
>>> has mucho better tools). That is my next big project for when I switch to my
>>> next new server.
>>>
>>> I'm just hoping I can get comfortable with a process for getting ZFS
>>> compiled into the kernel that is workable/tenable for ongoing kernel updates
>>> (with minimal fear of breaking things due to a complex/fragile
>>> methodology)...
>>
>> That sounds interesting. I don't think I'm up to it this time around,
>> but ZFS manages a RAID array better than a good hardware card?
>
> Yes. If you use ZFS to wrestle a JBOD array into its version of
> RAID1+0, when comes time for resilvering (i.e., rebuilding a failed
> drive), ZFS smartly only copies the used blocks and skips over unused
> blocks.
I'm seriously considering ZFS now. I'm going to start a new thread on
that topic.
- Grant
>> It sounds like ZFS isn't included in the mainline kernel. Is it on its way in?
>>
>
> Unlikely. There has been a discussion on that in this list, and there
> is some concern that ZFS' license (CDDL) is not compatible with the
> Linux kernel license (GPL), so never the twain shall be integrated.
>
> That said, if your kernel supports modules, it's a piece of cake to
> compile the ZFS modules on your own. @ryao has a zfs-overlay you can
> use to emerge ZFS as a module.
>
> If you have configured your kernel to not support modules, it's a bit
> more work, but ZFS can still be integrated statically into the kernel.
>
> But the onus is on us ZFS users to do the necessary steps.