Linked by Eugenia Loli on Fri 6th Apr 2007 05:52 UTC, submitted by binarycrusader
FreeBSD Pawel Dawidek announced today that the ZFS filesystem is now part of the FreeBSD operating system. iSCSI, booting, ICLs, and extended attributes are not supported yet.
Order by: Score:
One word
by MrEcho on Fri 6th Apr 2007 06:08 UTC
MrEcho
Member since:
2005-07-07

woot!

Reply Score: 2

RE: Two words
by silicon on Fri 6th Apr 2007 06:11 UTC in reply to "One word"
silicon Member since:
2005-07-30

w00t! w00t!

Reply Score: 1

:)
by vermaden on Fri 6th Apr 2007 06:34 UTC
vermaden
Member since:
2006-11-18

The WOW Starts Now!

:p

Reply Score: 1

User experience.
by Cagliostro on Fri 6th Apr 2007 06:43 UTC
Cagliostro
Member since:
2007-04-06

Are there any users who have tested it or already use it in production environment ?
If so please give us your feedback.

Reply Score: 1

RE: User experience.
by lopisaur on Fri 6th Apr 2007 07:18 UTC in reply to "User experience."
lopisaur Member since:
2006-02-27

The ZFS support is only available for the -CURRENT branch at the moment, which is unstable, state of the art and NOT recommended for production use. I don't think ZFS will be backported to the 6.x branch, so we'll have to wait for the 7.0 release.

Reply Score: 5

RE: User experience.
by Oliver on Fri 6th Apr 2007 09:14 UTC in reply to "User experience."
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

Nobody with a sane mind would be using a new ported filesystem in a production environment.

Reply Score: 5

ZFS: Why is it so hard to boot from?
by Jondice on Fri 6th Apr 2007 07:11 UTC
Jondice
Member since:
2006-09-20

I know Sun has been working on making ZFS bootable for 2 years, and I'm sure Apple has been interested in this for some time as well. What makes ZFS so much more difficult to boot from than other filesystems?

Reply Score: 3

zdzichu Member since:
2006-11-07

Support for reading it must be done in bootloader (GRUB for Solaris x86). So one have reimplement part of filesystem, in pretty hostile environment (bootloader is simple compared with fullblown OS with memory management and stuff). Also volume management part of ZFS makes it harder -- you can't just read some sectors of hard drive, you have to recreate stripes, mirrors, raids first.

But it's doable. Solaris people were working on it ( http://opensolaris.org/os/project/zfsboot/ ) and it's now possible to boot Solaris from ZFS on x86 ( http://www.opensolaris.org/os/community/on/flag-days/pages/20070328... ).

Reply Score: 5

Great news
by SReilly on Fri 6th Apr 2007 10:39 UTC
SReilly
Member since:
2006-12-28

ZFS is one of the most interesting things to come out of Sun recently and is a much needed tune up to the Solaris filesystem. Journaling UFS, although not bad, is not my first choice as when the power goes down, you might still end up losing data or making the system unstable. Also, considering ZFS's scalability, I think they are on too a winner here.

I'm glad FreeBSD has been able to incorporate dtrace as well. It seems to be making a great OS even better. Kinda got me thinking about using it for a home server.

Reply Score: 4

RE: Great news
by Doc Pain on Fri 6th Apr 2007 13:22 UTC in reply to "Great news"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"ZFS is one of the most interesting things to come out of Sun recently and is a much needed tune up to the Solaris filesystem."

I like the idea of soon having the great things from Solaris to be used in BSD as well. FreeBSD will surely become a concentrate of the best aspects of itself and other OSes (Solaris, OpenBSD etc.). I can't wait to see version 7 available for download.

"Journaling UFS, although not bad, is not my first choice as when the power goes down, you might still end up losing data or making the system unstable."

Just as I sidenote, I'd like to say that I did not encounter such problems, allthough my boss is one who likes to flip the main power switch of his FreeBSD (UFS2) workstation without shutting it down properly. The fsck works without user interaction, repairing minor problems by itself, but data loss? No.

UFS / UFS2 is quite safe because the on disk status is always in a consistent state between the writing operations. It uses soft updates instead of journaling. Metadata is written asynchronously in a definite order. In journaling, as you surely know it from EXT3FS, metadata is written twice, once into the journal, once to the file system, asynchronously. After writing operation to the file system is finished, the information is deleted from the journal. An interruption within this process may lead files to disappear without any warning.

"I'm glad FreeBSD has been able to incorporate dtrace as well. It seems to be making a great OS even better."

I'm glad I'm not the only one who thinks so. :-)

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: Great news
by Luminair on Fri 6th Apr 2007 23:15 UTC in reply to "RE: Great news"
Luminair Member since:
2007-03-30

I like the idea of soon having the great things from Solaris to be used in BSD as well. FreeBSD will surely become a concentrate of the best aspects of itself and other OSes (Solaris, OpenBSD etc.).

If Sun and the OpenSolaris community have their way, Solaris will become the best of other operating systems too ;) Lets see who gets there first ;)

Reply Score: 1

16 exbibyte limitation
by Chuck Norris on Fri 6th Apr 2007 12:16 UTC
Chuck Norris
Member since:
2007-03-24

The only problem I see with ZFS is that you're limited with 16 exbibyte in space. Which can be filled pretty quickly if you store Chuck Norris movies.

ZFS is a 128-bit file system, which means it can store 18 billion billion (18.4 1018) times more data than current 64-bit systems. The limitations of ZFS are designed to be so large that they will never be encountered in practice.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZFS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_file_systems

Reply Score: 5

RE: 16 exbibyte limitation
by binarycrusader on Fri 6th Apr 2007 13:06 UTC in reply to "16 exbibyte limitation"
binarycrusader Member since:
2005-07-06

I think this is a better one-line summary from the ZFS FAQ on OpenSolaris.org:

"ZFS can store 16 Exabytes in each storage pool, file system, file, or file attribute. ZFS can store billions of names: files or directories in a directory, file systems in a file system, or snapshots of a file system. ZFS can store trillions of items: files in a file system, file systems, volumes, or snapshots in a pool."


Edited 2007-04-06 13:07

Reply Score: 4

Good News not only for FreeBSD
by dswain on Fri 6th Apr 2007 14:22 UTC
dswain
Member since:
2005-07-03

But also the distros that are derived from it such as Dragonfly BSD and DesktopBSD. Though I guess it won't be a major effect initially obviously, these teams (once a final release is out) might be able to produce an easy system for even the end user to take advantage of.

Though I wonder what they would come up with to do with such a powerful file system. I'd imagine some type of backup system for starters. It could be very interesting to see where this could go with it. In the meantime, I'm hopeful for FreeBSD 7.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Good News not only for FreeBSD
by antik on Fri 6th Apr 2007 14:46 UTC in reply to "Good News not only for FreeBSD"
antik Member since:
2006-05-19

But also the distros that are derived from it such as Dragonfly BSD and DesktopBSD.

IIRC then DragonflyBSD is fork from FreeBSD and DesktopBSD *is* FreeBSD just like PC-BSD.

Journaling filesystems like Gjournal and ZFS is godsent for desktop users because usually desktop computers have no UPS and in case of power failure they are first victims with messed filesystems and lost files.

Reply Score: 1

dswain Member since:
2005-07-03

Oh okay good call. I was trying to find the other name (PC-BSD) but I couldn't recall it so I thought it was Dragonfly BSD.

Either way, I agree. I also see this being really great for a fast recovery system along with a backup system. Also with the ability to write those add ons so easily with the API they provide, we could see some really neat other tools blossom it seems like.

Reply Score: 1

kamil_chatrnuch Member since:
2005-07-07

there's no plan to port ZFS to DragonflyBSD in the future. the kernels are too much different by now and Matt's going on with his own implementation of a 'cluster filesystem'...

Reply Score: 4

I wish...
by Anonymous Penguin on Fri 6th Apr 2007 15:52 UTC
Anonymous Penguin
Member since:
2005-07-06

I wish that the Linux developers considered it as well, especially now that the Reiser4 future is totally unknown.

Reply Score: 2

RE: I wish...
by fepede on Fri 6th Apr 2007 18:38 UTC in reply to "I wish..."
fepede Member since:
2005-11-14

I wish that the Linux developers considered it as well, especially now that the Reiser4 future is totally unknown.

I wish it too, but if something has not changed since the last time i checked, there were licensing problem in including ZFS code within the Linux kernel.

However, there is a good working implementation of ZFS for FUSE to be used with Linux.

It is still in beta stage, and it will never be like having it in the kernel, however is a very interesting project.

I think that if the license of ZFS change, it won't be too hard to have ZFS in the kernel thanks to the work that Ricardo Correia is doing with ZFS on FUSE.

Check it out at this address:
http://zfs-on-fuse.blogspot.com/

Reply Score: 4

This is a bit off topic
by slashdev on Fri 6th Apr 2007 19:06 UTC
slashdev
Member since:
2006-05-14

Does anyone know if there are plans to Port ZFS (or any other non-MS file system) to Windows? (i know, probably far fetched...)

Reply Score: 2

v FreeBSD on the Desktop
by adamk on Fri 6th Apr 2007 20:17 UTC
v RE: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by Oliver on Fri 6th Apr 2007 20:41 UTC in reply to "FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[2]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by adamk on Fri 6th Apr 2007 20:49 UTC in reply to "RE: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[3]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by Oliver on Fri 6th Apr 2007 22:41 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[4]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by adamk on Fri 6th Apr 2007 22:58 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
RE[5]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by Doc Pain on Sat 7th Apr 2007 13:11 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
Doc Pain Member since:
2006-10-08

"My point simply is that the number of people for whom FreeBSD fits as a desktop system is going to decrease."

To simplify, I just divide "people for whom FreeBSD fits as a desktop system" into two parts: The ones who need eye candy (this includes 3D desktop as well, allthough I don't consider it as completely useless), and the ones who don't. For the first part, Linux surely is the better choice. KDE, Gnome, Compiz, Beryl et al. are designed for Linux primarily, they work fine here, along with the drivers for ATI or nVidia. Modern Linux distributions don't force anyone to get the hands dirty editing configuration files. The other part will be fine with PC-BSD and DesktopBSD. The better educated ones will use FreeBSD on the desktop as they did for years, setting up their system with the non-mainstream software that is the best solution for their individual needs. I may include myself here: I use FreeBSD at home (along with IRIX) and at work (along with Solaris) as a desktop OS. Even my boss does, and he can be considered quite computer illiterate. :-)

Finally, I think your statemend (or assumption) is correct. More and more people concentrate on eye candy, and this is not FreeBSD's main playing field.

Reply Score: 3

RE[5]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by Oliver on Sun 8th Apr 2007 15:57 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
Oliver Member since:
2006-07-15

It's this ill-fated term "desktop" a buzzword from Microsoft and Apple. I do have my "desktop" at FreeBSD and sometimes, if I have to cope with Debian, I have the same desktop too. So in the end it depends on the user.

I could easily say, most of the people nowadays is lost in eye-candy. But people who do need an easier entry level can go with DesktopBSD and PC-BSD - no distros, but an easier entry to FreeBSD. So what? We don't need a 2nd Ubuntu because people are too lazy to learn something.

Call it Zen or KISS, it's almost the same. You get a prof. base, with lot of options and you can build up your own environment. No interface-nazis according to Linus, no LSB mumbo jumbo in Linux, no half-cocked drivers just because of some media buzzwords and so on.

Reply Score: 1

v RE: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by antik on Fri 6th Apr 2007 20:56 UTC in reply to "FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[2]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by adamk on Fri 6th Apr 2007 21:10 UTC in reply to "RE: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[3]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by Oliver on Fri 6th Apr 2007 22:36 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
v RE[4]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by adamk on Fri 6th Apr 2007 22:56 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
RE[4]: FreeBSD on the Desktop
by sbergman27 on Sat 7th Apr 2007 03:03 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: FreeBSD on the Desktop"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

"""
And ZFS important for the desktop? What a nonsense ...
"""

Well, ZFS does seem already to have easier administration tools than the Linux Partitioning/RAID/LVM/EXT3 stack.

There is no reason that all those layers could not be easily controlled through a simple gui. But I'm beginning to despair of it ever happening. It's not like any one of those layers is new. And still, adding a new drive to an existing filesystem is rocket science.

It's not just that you have to drop to the command line to do it. It's that you have to drop to the command line and make the new drive a physical volume, add the physical volume to the volume group, expand the logical volume, and then online resize the filesystem. Oh, and you'd better do all that by UUID or label, and not device name, because you are not guaranteed that the device name will remain constant. Simple, isn't it?

I envision plain old end users being able to just plug another USB drive into their machine, and have it simply added to their existing filesystem.

They can already do this with RAM. Just plug it in and they have 2GB whereas they used to have 1GB.

They should be able to do the same with storage.

Again, there is no reason we *can't* do this in Linux. But it looks to me like ZFS has at least made some progress toward simplifying FS administration for people who don't happen to be experts.

Regarding your other claim. I tend to agree, as things stand today.

But, I suspect that composited desktops will gain some actual value once the silly and useless effects are dropped (retaining any features which are actually useful that may sift out), more cards support them, stability increases substantially, and they are considered mundane enough that no one talks about them any more. (And users come down hard on anyone who tries to reintroduce silliness like wobbly windows).

But I suppose this is not really the place to have that discussion.

Edited 2007-04-07 03:09

Reply Score: 5

AMD64
by Chezz on Mon 9th Apr 2007 07:46 UTC
Chezz
Member since:
2005-07-11

AMD64 patches has been added today.

Reply Score: 1