search for: openzfs

Hi Guys, We have been using OpenZFS in our HPC environment for quite some time. And OpenZFS was going fine. But we are now running into scalability issues since OpenZFS can't be scaled out. So, I am planning to use Gluster on top of OpenZFS. So, I wanted to know if anyone has tried it. if yes, how it was and any deployment gui...

On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:40:08AM +0530, gagan tiwari wrote: > Hi Guys, > We have been using OpenZFS in our HPC environment for > quite some time. And OpenZFS was going fine. > > But we are now running into scalability issues since OpenZFS can't be > scaled out. Since ZFS is a local FS, you are essentially limited to how much storage you can stick into one machine, yes. > So...

...yone else tried MooseFS. If yes, how was its performance? Thanks, Gagan On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:45?PM Alexander Schreiber <als at thangorodrim.ch> wrote: > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:40:08AM +0530, gagan tiwari wrote: > > Hi Guys, > > We have been using OpenZFS in our HPC environment for > > quite some time. And OpenZFS was going fine. > > > > But we are now running into scalability issues since OpenZFS can't be > > scaled out. > > Since ZFS is a local FS, you are essentially limited to how much storage > you can stick...

...d "ea support = yes" but it seems to have no effect on > > that. > > Googling for XAT_OFFLINE or XAT_ONLINE doesn't return anything. Yeh, my Googlefu is better than somebody who works for Google ;-) It seems to be something to do with ZFS on illumos: https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/blob/master/usr/src/uts/common/fs/xattr.c Rowland > > Do you mean the Windows FILE_ATTRIBUTE_OFFLINE attribute ? > > If so, yes, we support that if the server is using dmapi. >

...e? > > Thanks, > Gagan > > > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:45?PM Alexander Schreiber > <als at thangorodrim.ch> wrote: > > On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:40:08AM +0530, gagan tiwari wrote: > > > Hi Guys, > > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? We have been? using OpenZFS in our HPC > > > environment for > > > quite some time. And OpenZFS was going fine. > > > > > > But we are now running into scalability issues since OpenZFS > > > can't be > > > scaled out. > > > > Since ZFS is a local FS, you...

...FS. If yes, how was its performance? Thanks, Gagan On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 1:45?PM Alexander Schreiber <als at thangorodrim.ch<mailto:als at thangorodrim.ch>> wrote: On Thu, Apr 17, 2025 at 09:40:08AM +0530, gagan tiwari wrote: > Hi Guys, > We have been using OpenZFS in our HPC environment for > quite some time. And OpenZFS was going fine. > > But we are now running into scalability issues since OpenZFS can't be > scaled out. Since ZFS is a local FS, you are essentially limited to how much storage you can stick into one machine, yes. > So,...

...ct similar false claims. If you don't like those > discussions > at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections. > If I were RedHat, including a non GPL filesystem into my operating system would make me sweat a bit. Intel were facing a similar issue bundling OpenZFS with Lustre in their Intel Enterprise Edition for Lustre. They seem to have solved it by having the installer download the OpenZFS package during installation time.

I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6. I used ZFS for a couple of large file servers with no problems. The o...

...wrote: >>> Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: >>> >>>> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >>>> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >>>> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? >>> >>> There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a >>> fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. >>> >>> The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS int...

On 06/01/2015 06:42 AM, Joerg Schilling wrote: > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. > > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from > Linux is inferior to...

...n't like those > > discussions > > at all, you should try to avoid false claims and the need for corrections. > > > > If I were RedHat, including a non GPL filesystem into my operating system > would make me sweat a bit. Intel were facing a similar issue bundling > OpenZFS with Lustre in their Intel Enterprise Edition for Lustre. They seem > to have solved it by having the installer download the OpenZFS package > during installation time. There is no need to do it this way.... Note that it is without doubt that ZFS was not derived from the Linux kernel and t...

Hello, Does Samba support XAT_OFFLINE and XAT_ONLINE extended attribute? I have enabled "ea support = yes" but it seems to have no effect on that. Thanks Andrea

...) the server is an AD member server and 2) the map* parameters don't do the right thing under ZFS / NFSV4 ACLs. I've read that the steps Klaus Hartnegg listed resolves the issue on ZFS on Linux; however, I don't believe that SA based xattrs have been implemented in ZFS on FreeBSD (the OpenZFS website has "??" next to FreeBSD). Atime is already disabled on the zpool. At this point I'll have to wait until I get a proper testing environment set up to do proper experimentation / troubleshooting. -----Original Message----- From: Klaus Hartnegg [mailto:hartnegg at uni-freibu...

...oglefu is better than somebody who works for Google ;-) > Oh the shame, the shame :-). Having said that I am at > a conference and really should be paying attention to the > lectures :-). > >> It seems to be something to do with ZFS on illumos: >> >> https://github.com/openzfs/openzfs/blob/master/usr/src/uts/common/fs/xattr.c > Thnaks Rowland, I'll take a look ! >

Thank you Rowland for your help :D We forgot to say the data which are stored in NAS use the filesystem OpenZFS. root at nas:~# modinfo zfs | grep version version:??????? 0.7.13-pve1~bpo1 srcversion:???? 909F99977EB0376A4C4A91C vermagic:?????? 4.15.18-15-pve SMP mod_unload modversions root at nas:~# zdb | egrep "(name|version)" ??? version: 5000 ??? name: 'datastore' ??? hostname: '...

On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 07:51:58AM -0700, Chuck Munro wrote: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what > is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with > the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, > political, etc? > > Although btrfs is making progress, ZFS is far more mature, has a few > more stable features (especially Raid-z3) and has worked flawlessly > for me on CentOS-6 and Scientific Linux-6. I used ZFS for a couple > of large file serve...

Once upon a time, Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> said: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what > is the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with > the ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, > political, etc? Licensing. Sun chose an Open Source license that is incompatible with the GPLv2 as used by the Linux kernel, so it is not legally possible to distribute a combined work of the kernel and the Sun ZFS code (at least that's the opinion of a number...

Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from Linux is inferior to the one from OpenSolaris and...

...oerg Schilling wrote: > > Chuck Munro <chuckm at seafoam.net> wrote: > > > >> I have a question that has been puzzling me for some time ... what is > >> the reason RedHat chose to go with btrfs rather than working with the > >> ZFS-on-Linux folks (now OpenZFS)? Is it a licensing issue, political, etc? > > > > There is no licensing issue, but there are OpenSource enemies that spread a > > fairy tale about an alleged licensing issue. > > > > The only problem with integrating ZFS into Linux is that the VFS interface from...

As if last weekend's UEFI debacle wasn't bad enough, it now seems the latest C8 kernel (4.18.0-193.14.2) is incompatible with the current ZFSOnLinux packages (0.8.4-1). When booted to the latest kernel, ZFS is inaccessible on my C8 storage server. When I back off to the prior kernel (4.18.0-193.6.3), all is well. If a local ZFS system is unavailable to the C8 kernel support folks,