Hello, A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant. Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;) Thanks, //Jim Klimov
On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote:> Hello, > > A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, > and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding > another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the > desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel > modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant.Besides FUSE, there''s also this: http://zfsonlinux.org/ Btrfs also has many ZFS-like features: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs> Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? > Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not > lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;)A better bet would probably be to check out the lists of the porting projects themselves. Most of the folks on zfs-discuss are probably people that use ZFS on platforms that have more official support for it (OpenSolaris-based stuff and FreeBSD).
There''s also ZFS from KQInfotech. -- Sriram On 6/14/11, David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca> wrote:> On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote: >> Hello, >> >> A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, >> and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding >> another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the >> desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel >> modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant. > > Besides FUSE, there''s also this: > > http://zfsonlinux.org/ > > Btrfs also has many ZFS-like features: > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs > >> Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? >> Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not >> lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;) > > A better bet would probably be to check out the lists of the porting > projects themselves. Most of the folks on zfs-discuss are probably people > that use ZFS on platforms that have more official support for it > (OpenSolaris-based stuff and FreeBSD). > > > _______________________________________________ > zfs-discuss mailing list > zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org > http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >-- Sent from my mobile device =================Belenix: www.belenix.org
Just for completeness, there is also VirtualBox which runs Solaris nicely. -- This message posted from opensolaris.org
2011-06-14 21:38, Marty Scholes ?????:> Just for completeness, there is also VirtualBox which runs Solaris nicely.Are there estimates on how performant and stable would it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same desktop? I did actually suggest this as a considered variant as well ;) I am going to try and build such a VirtualBox for my ailing HomeNAS as well - so it would import that iSCSI "dcpool" and try to process its defer-free blocks. At least if the hardware box doesn''t stall so that a human has to be around to go and push reset, this would be a more viable solution for my repair-reboot cycles... //Jim
I just learned from the Phoronix website that KQ Infotech has stopped working on ZFS for Linux, but that their github repo is still active. Also, zfsonlinux.org mentioned earlier on this mail thread is seeing active development. -- Sriram On 6/14/11, Sriram Narayanan <sriram at belenix.org> wrote:> There''s also ZFS from KQInfotech. > > -- Sriram > > On 6/14/11, David Magda <dmagda at ee.ryerson.ca> wrote: >> On Tue, June 14, 2011 08:15, Jim Klimov wrote: >>> Hello, >>> >>> A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, >>> and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding >>> another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the >>> desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel >>> modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant. >> >> Besides FUSE, there''s also this: >> >> http://zfsonlinux.org/ >> >> Btrfs also has many ZFS-like features: >> >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Btrfs >> >>> Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? >>> Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not >>> lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;) >> >> A better bet would probably be to check out the lists of the porting >> projects themselves. Most of the folks on zfs-discuss are probably people >> that use ZFS on platforms that have more official support for it >> (OpenSolaris-based stuff and FreeBSD). >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> zfs-discuss mailing list >> zfs-discuss at opensolaris.org >> http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/zfs-discuss >> > > -- > Sent from my mobile device > > =================> Belenix: www.belenix.org >-- Sent from my mobile device =================Belenix: www.belenix.org
> Are there estimates on how performant and stable would > it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with > dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same > desktop? I did actually suggest this as a considered > variant as well ;) > > I am going to try and build such a VirtualBox for my ailing > HomeNAS as well - so it would import that iSCSI "dcpool" > and try to process its defer-free blocks. At least if the > hardware box doesn''t stall so that a human has to be > around to go and push reset, this would be a more > viable solution for my repair-reboot cycles...If you want good performance and ZFS, I''d suggest using something like OpenIndiana or Solaris 11EX or perhaps FreeBSD for the host and VirtualBox for a linux guest if that''s needed. Doing so, you''ll get good I/O performance, and you can use the operating system or distro you like for the rest of the services. Vennlige hilsener / Best regards roy -- Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk (+47) 97542685 roy at karlsbakk.net http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ -- I all pedagogikk er det essensielt at pensum presenteres intelligibelt. Det er et element?rt imperativ for alle pedagoger ? unng? eksessiv anvendelse av idiomer med fremmed opprinnelse. I de fleste tilfeller eksisterer adekvate og relevante synonymer p? norsk.
On 6/14/2011 12:50 PM, Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk wrote:>> Are there estimates on how performant and stable would >> it be to run VirtualBox with a Solaris-derived NAS with >> dedicated hardware disks, and use that from the same >> desktop? I did actually suggest this as a considered >> variant as well ;) >> >> I am going to try and build such a VirtualBox for my ailing >> HomeNAS as well - so it would import that iSCSI "dcpool" >> and try to process its defer-free blocks. At least if the >> hardware box doesn''t stall so that a human has to be >> around to go and push reset, this would be a more >> viable solution for my repair-reboot cycles... > If you want good performance and ZFS, I''d suggest using something like OpenIndiana or Solaris 11EX or perhaps FreeBSD for the host and VirtualBox for a linux guest if that''s needed. Doing so, you''ll get good I/O performance, and you can use the operating system or distro you like for the rest of the services. > > Vennlige hilsener / Best regards > > roy > -- > Roy Sigurd Karlsbakk > (+47) 97542685 > roy at karlsbakk.net > http://blogg.karlsbakk.net/ >The other option is to make sure you have a newer CPU that supports Virtualized I/O. I''d have to look at the desktop CPUs, but all Intel Nehalem and later CPUs have this feature, and I''m pretty sure all AMD MangyCours and later CPUs do also. Without V-IO, doing anything that pounds on a disk under *any* Virtualization product is sure to make you cry. -- Erik Trimble Java Platform Group Infrastructure Mailstop: usca22-317 Phone: x17195 Santa Clara, CA Timezone: US/Pacific (UTC-0800)
> From: zfs-discuss-bounces at opensolaris.org [mailto:zfs-discuss- > bounces at opensolaris.org] On Behalf Of Jim Klimov > > A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, > and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding > another server in his small quiet apartment or changing theMost likely BTRFS will be your best friend, if what you care about is mostly snapshots. Unfortunately, one major deficiency of BTRFS is the inability to do something on-par with ''zfs send'' onto a remote system. Maybe you care, maybe not. BTRFS is included now (and for the last couple of years) on ubuntu, fedora, and surely some other major distros. If you want to consider the Solaris guest idea... I certainly do this in some situations. Here''s what you should know. Even with VT (or whatever) enabled and guest tools installed (or whatever) I have never seen virtualbox perform disk IO at a rate satisfactorily similar to the native OS. Furthermore, even if you network the host & guest via virtual network interface (speed limited only by cpu & ram) it doesn''t go nearly as fast as you would think... I see something like sustainable maximum 3Gbit going through the virtual network interfaces. And of course you give up a significant chunk of ram to run the virtual guest. Yes, it works. Yes, it''s appropriate in some cases. My personal advice would be to look at BTRFS first, and virtual guest second.
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 7:15 PM, Jim Klimov <jimklimov at cos.ru> wrote:> Hello, > > ?A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, > and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding > another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the > desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel > modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant. > > ?Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? > Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not > lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;)zfs-fuse has been around for a long time, and is quite stable. Ubuntu natty has it on universe repository (don''t know about Debian''s repository, but you should be able to use Ubuntu''s). It has the benefits and drawbacks of fuse implementation (namely: it does not support zvol) zfsonlinux is somewhat new, and has some problems relating memory management (in some cases arc usage can get very high, and then you''ll see high cpu usage by arc_reclaim thread). It''s not recommended for 32bit OS. Being in kernel, it has potential to be more stable and faster than zfs-fuse. It has zvol support. Latest rc version is somewhat stable for normal uses. Performance-wise, from my test it can be 4 times slower compared to ext4 (depending on the load). -- Fajar
On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 04:15:17PM +0400, Jim Klimov wrote:> Hello, > > A college friend of mine is using Debian Linux on his desktop, > and wondered if he could tap into ZFS goodness without adding > another server in his small quiet apartment or changing the > desktop OS. According to his research, there are some kernel > modules for Debian which implement ZFS, or a FUSE variant. > > Can anyone comment how stable and functional these are? > Performance is a secondary issue, as long as it does not > lead to system crashes due to timeouts, etc. ;)If you would like to stay with Debian, you can try Debian GNU/kFreeBSD with is Debian userland with FreeBSD kernel thus it should contain ZFS. http://www.debian.org/ports/kfreebsd-gnu/ -- Pawel Jakub Dawidek http://www.wheelsystems.com FreeBSD committer http://www.FreeBSD.org Am I Evil? Yes, I Am! http://yomoli.com -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: not available Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 196 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://mail.opensolaris.org/pipermail/zfs-discuss/attachments/20110615/7ecebf95/attachment.bin>