• CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      8 months ago

      I love ZFS but support for it on Ubuntu seems haphazard. It works fine for non-root drives.

      I’ve tried running it as my root partition and just gave up after it fucked up my bpool dataset too many times.

        • CosmicTurtle0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          8 months ago

          Yup. It booted fine but after a few reboots, bpool somehow got corrupted and refused to boot. It happened repeatedly after several reinstalls.

          • qprimed@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            8 months ago

            ZFS hits memory hard and sometimes can bring out latent deficiencies in that hardware. on non-optimal hardware its a bit of a hardware torture test in its own right.

            having said that, EXT4 and XFS are wonderful unless you need zfs/btrfs.

          • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Yeah, the current implementation from the installer never got beyond the experimental stage when it was first introduced. I saw there’s a new “guided setup” in the 24.04 release notes. No idea what it entails yet. I think I’ve also seen a page for setting it up for / in OpenZFS’es docs. I might try it at some point.

    • subtext@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      8 months ago

      Same here lol, just read through ext{2…4} as well as Btrfs and Bcachefs (and B Trees of course). What a wonderful unplanned deep dive.

    • exscape@kbin.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      ZFS is really nice. I started experimenting with it when it was being introduced to FreeBSD, around 2007-2008, but only truly started using it last year, for two NASes (on Linux).

      It’s complex for a filesystem, but considering all it can do, that’s not surprising.

      • Peasley@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Not recommended for single-disk root partitions. This is a mistake I’ve made myself. Recovery tools are non-existant on ZFS so non-parity setups are inherently risky. If you have root setup on at least raidz1 with at least 2 disks you are fine.

        • Avid Amoeba@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Personally I wouldn’t consider recovery as an option at all because it could easily be unavailable because the SSD failed. Instead, I tend to add a mirror drive and/or keep frequent backups where that’s not possible. So from that perspective ZFS is equivalent to Ext4, which I currently use. I’d prefer ZFS over it for it’s data verification, snapshotting and datasets features.

          • Peasley@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            I’ve successfully recovered data from ext4 on a broken drive on one occasion. I agree it would have been better to have backups so lesson learned I suppose. Still if I’d been on ZFS root with no mirror I’d have been even more SOL