Must have open source projects for IT admins

[shadow_man]

ZFSonLinux aint bad, until you try ZFS on OpenIndiana or another Illumos based distro. ZFS on those are just amazing. Actually supports the full windows privileges (eg. instead of 777 crap you can do user/group based and more specific and just those 3 digits) and integrates very nicely into an AD environment. Also CIFS on these distros are much faster than Samba on Linux. If you serious about file storage using ZFS, give OpenIndiana for example a test. Running my fileserver at home now on OpenIndiana, and it is the best choice I have ever made for ZFS.

I've tried both OpenIndiana and Illumos. I found ZFS on Linux to be faster in a bonnie++ test and a dd test for read / write. Based on a small RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 setup. I also tested FreeNas + NAS4Free to test the BSD side of things and once again Linux won. My pool is v28 at the moment, what ZFS benefits are you getting off those that the Linux fork doesn't offer?

 

[shadow_man]

I would steer clear of this one - it's the worst ZFS implementation available (except for ZFS-fuse). If you want ZFS in an Open Sourche flavour, FreeBSD is what you want. At least until the Linux port of Open ZFS catches up, which looks like it will be a long long time.

I've tried both OpenIndiana and Illumos. I found ZFS on Linux to be faster in a bonnie++ test and a dd test for read / write. Based on a small RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 setup. I also tested FreeNas + NAS4Free to test the BSD side of things and once again Linux won. My pool is v28 at the moment, what ZFS benefits are you getting off those that the Linux fork doesn't offer?

 

[Tinuva]

I've tried both OpenIndiana and Illumos. I found ZFS on Linux to be faster in a bonnie++ test and a dd test for read / write. Based on a small RAIDZ1 and RAIDZ2 setup.

I find it hard to believe that the ZFSonLinux port was faster. You will probably find that the Linux buffering/caching is what gave you the faster results. What you don't know is, how very ineffective ZFSonLinux is with memory management. Try to run 10-100TB storage with ZFSonLinux and you will quickly see how bad it is. You need 4 times the amount of memory you would on Illumos. Also, I am on the ZFSonLinux mail list, the amount of problems I see come through which just doesn't happen on Illumos, is crazy, that and they still port Illumos zfs code over on a daily basis.
So yeah, your extra speed comes of double caching/buffering, but at a cost of memory usage.

I also tested FreeNas + NAS4Free to test the BSD side of things and once again Linux won.

To be honest, I wouldn't run my ZFS storage (which is a 15TB home server currently) on either FreeBSD or Linux ZFS.

My pool is v28 at the moment, what ZFS benefits are you getting off those that the Linux fork doesn't offer?

I can't speak for FreeBSD ZFS, but can you do this to set permissions for windows clients? Much more specific than a chmod 664 or 775 IMHO.

chmod A=\                                                                                                                                     :(
owner@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-----:allow,\
group@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-----:allow,\
everyone@:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-----:deny \

chmod A=\                                                                                                                                     :(
owner@:rwxp--aARWcCos:fd-----:allow,\
group@:--------------:-------:allow,\
everyone@:--------------:-------:deny \

                                  group:BSSE-NASadmins:rwxpdDaARWcCos:fd-----:allow
                                        |||||||||||||||:||||||+ inherited access
                                        ||||||||||||||:||||||+ failed access
                                        ||||||||||||||:|||||+--success access
                                        ||||||||||||||:||||+-- no propagate
                                        ||||||||||||||:|||+--- inherit only
                                        ||||||||||||||:||+---- directory inherit
                                        ||||||||||||||:|+----- file inherit
                                        ||||||||||||||
                                        ||||||||||||||+ sync
                                        |||||||||||||+- change owner
                                        ||||||||||||+-- write ACL
                                        |||||||||||+--- read ACL
                                        ||||||||||+---- write extended attributes
                                        |||||||||+----- read extended attributes
                                        ||||||||+------ write attributes
                                        |||||||+------- read attributes
                                        ||||||+-------- delete child
                                        |||||+--------- delete
                                        ||||+---------- append
                                        |||+----------- execute
                                        ||+------------ write data
                                        |+------------- read data

 

[Tinuva]

I would steer clear of this one - it's the worst ZFS implementation available (except for ZFS-fuse). If you want ZFS in an Open Sourche flavour, FreeBSD is what you want. At least until the Linux port of Open ZFS catches up, which looks like it will be a long long time.

ZFSonLinux is not as bad as you make it out, but I agree, I wouldn't use it for production servers, the memory requirement and fragmentation is not something I like too much.

As for Open ZFS version? I think you may be a bit confused as to what exactly Open ZFS is. It is not another Linux ZFS fork. ZFSonLinux is one of the members of the Open ZFS initiative, which basically is an initiative to bring all the open-source zfs projects together, and have all the developers work on the same ZFS implementation/tree. Illumos, ZFSonLinuz, ZFS-Fuse, mac-zfs or whatever, FreeBSD ZFS, are all members of this Open ZFS initiative. I love what Open ZFS aims to do, and consider that 1 of the 2 original ZFS developers are part of this initiative, it is a great thing for the open-source ZFS going forward.

Why do you say that? It's absolutely safe for production environment. But like any tool, it can be used to do stupid things which may not be production safe.

I agree, LVM2 in Linux is just fine, don't do stupid things, much like you shouldn't do "rm -Rf /".