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) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by finch.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 9FDB015815E for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:22:47 +0000 (UTC) Received: from pigeon.gentoo.org (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with SMTP id B88B1E2A16; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from ciao.gmane.io (ciao.gmane.io [116.202.254.214]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256/256 bits) key-exchange ECDHE (prime256v1) server-signature RSA-PSS (4096 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by pigeon.gentoo.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 4D303E29FD for ; Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:22:42 +0000 (UTC) Received: from list by ciao.gmane.io with local (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1rXP9c-0003Oq-VH for gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org; Tue, 06 Feb 2024 18:22:40 +0100 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ To: gentoo-user@lists.gentoo.org From: Grant Edwards Subject: [gentoo-user] Re: Suggestions for backup scheme? Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2024 17:22:34 -0000 (UTC) Message-ID: References: <13464302.uLZWGnKmhe@iris> <12384456.O9o76ZdvQC@iris> 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 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit User-Agent: slrn/1.0.3 (Linux) X-Archives-Salt: fe4eb07f-cf9a-4bb8-8039-9c26924ec75c X-Archives-Hash: ea0e9919f9515bf7725179a6e09b4949 On 2024-02-06, J. Roeleveld wrote: > On Tuesday, February 6, 2024 4:38:11 PM CET Grant Edwards wrote: >> On 2024-02-05, J. Roeleveld wrote: >> > On Wednesday, January 31, 2024 6:56:47 PM CET Rich Freeman wrote: >> >> On Wed, Jan 31, 2024 at 12:40 PM Thelma wrote: >> >> > 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. >> > >> > Which isn't as much of an issue as it sounds. You can still add it >> > into the initramfs and can easily load the module. >> >> What if you don't use an initrd? >> >> I presume that boot/root on ext4 and home on ZFS would not require an >> initrd? > > Yes, that wouldn't require an initrd. But why would you limit this? Because I really, really dislike having to use an initrd. That's probably just an irrational 30 year old prejudice, but over the decades I've found live to be far simpler and more pleasant without initrds. Maybe things have improved over the years, but way back when I did use distros that required initrds, they seem to be a constant, nagging source of headaches. > ZFS works best when given the FULL drive. Where do you put swap? > For my server, I use "bliss-initramfs" to generate the initramfs and > have not had any issues with this since I started using ZFS. > > Especially the ease of generating snapshots also make it really easy > to roll back an update if anything went wrong. If your > root-partition isn't on ZFS, you can't easily roll back. True. However, I've never adopted the practice of backing up my root fs (except for a few specific directories like /etc), and haven't ever really run into situations where I wished I had. It's all stuff that can easily be reinstalled. -- Grant