ZFS FOR LINUX FINALLY!

[darshin]

As we all know, ZFS is by far the best file system and so far was only usable over Solaris.

People have workarounds and solutions which are kind of 2nd tone replacements, but either ways, all these solutions are not really good replacements as they either are not stable enough or lack some of the salient features of ZFS.

We at KQ, have finally succeeded in porting ZFS to Linux ! No hidden surprises, we have indeed ported ZFS on Linux (the main one, not any workaround modes here!!!

We are releasing the closed beta in last week of August/first week of september and are looking for closed beta customers who can test it for free on some environments.

Mail me at darshin@kqinfotech.com to register.

Feel free to put forward any questions as well.

Kind Regards,
Darshin
Manager (ZFS on Linux)
KQ Infotech

[linuxviolin]

As we all know, ZFS is by far the best file system

ZFS the best file system? It is good but not "the best". Personally I'll stay with XFS or JFS, thanks.

[DrHu]

For regular Linux or even Windows or Apple (Mac) users that don't need a data factory

• --not running
• A computer lab
• A video/audio processing lab
• A security monitoring system
  --collecting video and audio cctv data
• Large RAID, Cluster, or rendering system
  --for graphics or movie making etc etc.

For such people, that is the normal single or small LAN user, almost any of the available linux file systems are sufficient for the purpose of storing and moving data
--it just happens that some file systems do offer better support for large files, such as XFS, JFS or ZFS, or Reiserfs

[randomizer]

And then there was Btrfs. Why am I replying to spam?

[mick55]

Why am I replying to spam?

Force of habit?

[randomizer]

I must admit I was talking to a bot on MSN last night. I guess this is just a flow-on effect.

[tdockery97]

Spam or not, this thread brings up a question in my mind. With the exception of running some high-powered supercomputer at Livermore Labs, is there really any benefit of changing from Ext4 to another file system?

[linuxviolin]

Spam or not, this thread brings up a question in my mind. With the exception of running some high-powered supercomputer at Livermore Labs, is there really any benefit of changing from Ext4 to another file system?

Seek in the forum. There are already many posts about the file system, e.g. you can seek for my posts or also those of Fred... Personally, I don't use ext3, except in CentOS because they are "conservative" so we can not use JFS and even XFS (still somewhat experimental on Red Hat) and on my external hard drives for good compatibility, and when I use it it's not with its defaults (even Linus hates the defaults of ext3) I don't want really using ext4, I stay with my favorites, the best for now: JFS or XFS, with noatime.

[piratesmack]

ZFS is by far the best file system [citation needed]

[eiver]

(...) is there really any benefit of changing from Ext4 to another file system?

Yes. Ext4 lacks any kind of defragmentation support and it DOES fragment over time. I use XFS instead, which supports natively defragmentation. I didn't notice any significant performance differences. XFS partition cannot be shrunk, but thats something I can live with.

[tdockery97]

Yes. Ext4 lacks any kind of defragmentation support and it DOES fragment over time.

Thank you. That's why I love this forum. That is a good solid reason to change right there. Someone like me who is trying out new packages on a daily basis could eventually see a system slowdown due to fragmentation. I'll do some research on changing file systems.

[piratesmack]

@tdockery97
Some multi-booters like to install Grub to the boot sector of their / partition when they add a new distro. One thing you should know is you *CAN'T* install Grub to the boot sector of an XFS partition. You must install Grub to the MBR or create a small Ext2 /boot partition then install it to that.

Would hate to see you lose data making that mistake.

[tdockery97]

Well, I did a lot of reading last night. So far the majority opinion seems to be that Ext4 is the most stable file system at the moment.

[mick55]

Ext4 is the most stable file system at the moment.

Gee, tdockery97, you must be wrong, because this guy says ZFS is the best...

.....2 more times.

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=61&t=53868

http://forums.linuxmint.com/viewtopic.php?f=60&t=53867

Once is informative, twice is a reminder, thrice is SPAM.

mick

[piratesmack]

Yeah, saw that too

Reported one of them, the other was already reported.

[randomizer]

Once is informative, twice is a reminder, thrice is SPAM.

mick

The first time was spam. This "person" has posted the same rubbish verbatim on several forums.

[linuxviolin]

Well, I did a lot of reading last night. So far the majority opinion seems to be that Ext4 is the most stable file system at the moment.

Absolutely wrong/false. Only the ignorant can say that...

[eiver]

Well, I did a lot of reading last night. So far the majority opinion seems to be that Ext4 is the most stable file system at the moment.

So far I used quite extensively ntfs, ext3, ext4, xfs. Never lost a single file due to a file system error and I did experience my share of random shutdowns due to power loss.

[thenewguy]

You might want to qualify "stable" in what fashion. Stable from a development point of view, stable from a data integrity point of view, stable from a fragmentation perspective?

Regarding ZFS, a lot of companies are looking at ZFS and really liking it for large storage. The pools, on-line adjustments, cloning and data checksums are very appealing. I do hope the Linux ZFS module works out. BtrFS might be just as good (and it appears to be faster) but it's not stable development-wise yet. Ext4, while a good, solid file system, just isn't in the same league as BtrFS and ZFS. Ext4 is more of a evolution from ext3, which is nice, but it doesn't bring the same feature set to the table.

[tdockery97]

Okay. Maybe I should have worded it that most of what I read was that Ext4 was claimed to be the most "solid" or the FS that they most trusted. Just like a lot of things, it was other people's opinions, I guess. Just like distros, there probably is no "best" distro...it's all in what you prefer, like, or trust the most.