1 |
On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 8:14 AM, lee <lee@××××××××.de> wrote: |
2 |
> Rich Freeman <rich0@g.o> writes: |
3 |
>> |
4 |
>> Doing backups with dd isn't terribly practical, but it is completely |
5 |
>> safe if done correctly. The LV would need to be the same size or |
6 |
>> larger, or else your filesystem will be truncated. |
7 |
> |
8 |
> Yes, my impression is that it isn't very practical or a good method, and |
9 |
> I find it strange that LVM is still lacking some major features. |
10 |
|
11 |
Generally you do backup at the filesystem layer, not at the volume |
12 |
management layer. LVM just manages a big array of disk blocks. It |
13 |
has no concept of files. |
14 |
|
15 |
>> |
16 |
>> Just create a small boot partition and give the rest to zfs. A |
17 |
>> partition is a block device, just like a disk. ZFS doesn't care if it |
18 |
>> is managing the entire disk or just a partition. |
19 |
> |
20 |
> ZFS does care: You cannot export ZFS pools residing on partitions, and |
21 |
> apparently ZFS cannot use the disk cache as efficiently when it uses |
22 |
> partitions. |
23 |
|
24 |
Cite? This seems unlikely. |
25 |
|
26 |
> Caching in memory is also less efficient because another |
27 |
> file system has its own cache. |
28 |
|
29 |
There is no other filesystem. ZFS is running on bare metal. It is |
30 |
just pointing to a partition on a drive (an array of blocks) instead |
31 |
of the whole drive (an array of blocks). The kernel does not cache |
32 |
partitions differently from drives. |
33 |
|
34 |
> On top of that, you have the overhead of |
35 |
> software raid for that small partition unless you can dedicate |
36 |
> hardware-raided disks for /boot. |
37 |
|
38 |
Just how often are you reading/writing from your boot partition? You |
39 |
only read from it at boot time, and you only write to it when you |
40 |
update your kernel/etc. There is no requirement for it to be raided |
41 |
in any case, though if you have multiple disks that wouldn't hurt. |
42 |
|
43 |
> |
44 |
>> This sort of thing was very common before grub2 started supporting |
45 |
>> more filesystems. |
46 |
> |
47 |
> That doesn't mean it's a good setup. I'm finding it totally |
48 |
> undesirable. Having a separate /boot partition has always been a |
49 |
> crutch. |
50 |
|
51 |
Better not buy an EFI motherboard. :) |
52 |
|
53 |
> |
54 |
>>> With ZFS at hand, btrfs seems pretty obsolete. |
55 |
>> |
56 |
>> You do realize that btrfs was created when ZFS was already at hand, |
57 |
>> right? I don't think that ZFS will be likely to make btrfs obsolete |
58 |
>> unless it adopts more dynamic desktop-oriented features (like being |
59 |
>> able to modify a vdev), and is relicensed to something GPL-compatible. |
60 |
>> Unless those happen, it is unlikely that btrfs is going to go away, |
61 |
>> unless it is replaced by something different. |
62 |
> |
63 |
> Let's say it seems /currently/ obsolete. |
64 |
|
65 |
You seem to have an interesting definition of "obsolete" - something |
66 |
which holds potential promise for the future is better described as |
67 |
"experimental." |
68 |
|
69 |
> |
70 |
> Solutions are needed /now/, not in about 10 years when btrfs might be |
71 |
> ready. |
72 |
> |
73 |
|
74 |
Well, feel free to create one. Nobody is stopping anybody from using |
75 |
zfs, but unless it is either relicensed by Oracle or the |
76 |
kernel/grub/etc is relicensed by everybody else you're unlikely to see |
77 |
it become a mainstream solution. That seems to be the biggest barrier |
78 |
to adoption, though it would be nice for small installations if vdevs |
79 |
were more dynamic. |
80 |
|
81 |
By all means use it if that is your preference. A license may seem |
82 |
like a small thing, but entire desktop environments have been built as |
83 |
a result of them. When a mainstream linux distro can't put ZFS |
84 |
support on their installation CD due to licensing compatibility it |
85 |
makes it pretty impractical to use it for your default filesystem. |
86 |
|
87 |
I'd love to see the bugs worked out of btrfs faster, but for what I've |
88 |
paid for it so far I'd say I'm getting good value for my $0. It is |
89 |
FOSS - it gets done when those contributing to it (whether paid or |
90 |
not) are done. The ones who are paying for it get to decide for |
91 |
themselves if it meets their needs, which could be quite different |
92 |
from yours. |
93 |
|
94 |
I'd actually be interested in a comparison of the underlying btrfs vs |
95 |
zfs designs. I'm not talking about implementation (bugs/etc), but the |
96 |
fundamental designs. What features are possible to add to one which |
97 |
are impossible to add to the other, what performance limitations will |
98 |
the one always suffer in comparison to the other, etc? All the |
99 |
comparisons I've seen just compare the implementations, which is |
100 |
useful if you're trying to decide what to install /right now/ but less |
101 |
so if you're trying to understand the likely future of either. |
102 |
|
103 |
-- |
104 |
Rich |