Jump to content

Talk:Oracle ZFS

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tomskyhaha (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 20 May 2020 (→Advice and glossary removed: wikibooks link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconComputing B‑class Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Computing, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of computers, computing, and information technology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ComputingWikipedia:WikiProject ComputingTemplate:WikiProject ComputingComputing articles
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

zfs share

Add section to discuss 'zfs share' feature?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 09:55, 7 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:34, 21 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:39, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

ZFS is Allocate-On-Write

"This, when combined with the copy-on-write transactional semantics of ZFS, eliminates the write hole error. RAID-Z is also faster than traditional RAID 5 because it does not need to perform the usual read-modify-write sequence" ... but read-modify-write is Copy-On-Write. ZFS do not need to modify the original block. Something must be wrong!

NTFS for example is Copy-On-Write. read, write backup, modify and write new block. WAFL is Write-Anywhere or Reallocate-On-Write. read, modify fixed block, write new block to anywhere inside Flex Volume. ZFS is something like Allocate-On-Write. Perhaps it only need to write the new block inside Pool, because it use flexible block sizes.

I did some changes on the german wiki, but it's hard to find any good explaination for it. Help is needed! — Preceding unsigned comment added by SchaubFD (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read-modify-write here means to read an entire RAID stripe in order to modify only part of it together with a new checksum. This happens when only a block smaller than a whole stripe is written. This is avoided here by use of a variable stripe size.
Copy-on-write only needs read-modify-write if the written data is smaller than the smallest possible stripe size (physical block size) or if it is not aligned to a block size. -- Juergen 87.175.215.51 (talk) 14:02, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

datasets

The article mentions datasets, but does not explain what that is. -- Juergen 87.175.215.51 (talk) 13:54, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Dataset is a collective name for zfs filesystems and zvols.

A zvol is a block device created in a zpool. Typically used as a swap device and/or dump device by the OS. Can also be used to house an iSCSI or Fiber channel LUN, and for databases and other applications that expect to use a raw or block device. Can also be used to house another type of filesystem, such as UFS, FAT, ISO9660, etc.

205.228.82.178 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on ZFS. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:46, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

RFC: merging or reorganizing ZFS and OpenZFS to more accurately represent the implementations of ZFS [ENDED. Consensus was: Refactor]

Editors agree with refactoring. History and implementations of ZFS has been created.

Cunard (talk) 04:26, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the ZFS and OpenZFS articles be merged or reorganized, and if so, in what way? If not, how do we approach the issues caused by the term "ZFS" referring to two implementations and the file system each develops (their coverage overlaps by about 99% for our purposes)? FT2 (Talk | email) 19:56, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Summary of issue

We have 2 articles covering pretty much 3 almost-identical/overlapping "meanings" of ZFS (as seen from a Wikipedia perspective). They probably have 99% overlap. They are:

  1. ZFS the filing system, covering what ZFS is and how it works, and its history as a filing system, and then two specific major implementations of ZFS:
  2. Oracle's ZFS (an implementation by Oracle) and
  3. illumos and OpenZFS's ZFS (a second implementation technically managed by two teams, also refers to the project/team; their implementation was originally based on Oracle's wayyy back in 2006 but has been independent for many years).

The implementations of ZFS themselves are probably about 99.9% identical for the purposes of our coverage. Once ZFS itself is described, the histories of Oracle's and OpenZFS' versions, and any differences, would probably fit into quite a modestly sized/small section however we organize these topics.

Right now the ZFS article is a bit disingenuous. Our article on OpenZFS is fine, but our coverage of ZFS in depth (where users looking up the filing system will inevitably go), is within our article at ZFS ... and that article portrays ZFS as an Oracle product, and written by Oracle, despite that for over 10 years it's been two distinct forks, one of which has nothing at all to do with Oracle since about the days of the Pentium 4.

What to do? I don't want to leave the ZFS article representing ZFS as "Oracle", because 50% of it isn't, and that 50% is also used in far more operating systems and operating system installations than Oracle's. On the other hand to merge them (which feels sensible TBH) would replace OpenZFS by either a redirect to ZFS, or a short article with two sections ("details of ZFS" + "OpenZFS" history) almost all of which would be repeated pretty much identically or in more detail in ZFS anyhow. I've patched it a bit but it still needs dealing with.

I feel like these two articles really should be fully merged from a strictly wiki perspective, and the merged article should then emphasize both variants equally and cover their history. It would add almost nothing (lengthwise) to the ZFS article. Normal handling of very similar/overlapping topics also suggests this approach. But I have a bit of a concern that this could upset some users who might potentially be quite attached to continuing to have a specific OpenZFS-specific article.

An alternative would be to redo the split, and refactor into two articles called ZFS and Implementations of ZFS, the first covering the file system, the second covering the two variants and their histories.

Hence this RFC, to seek community views on covering these topics in a single article that's neutral to both implementations, or two articles splitting the topic between ZFS itself vs specific implementations. How should these related topics be presented?

I've also specifically asked User:Dsimic's comments, as the contributor who has made the majority of edits at OpenZFS.

FT2 (Talk | email) 19:48, 3 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Refactor. The article is quite long and I like the techie stuff away from the history stuff as I'm likely to be interested in one or the other at any particular point in time. Currently mulling about article naming and a couple of other issues. May be a bit of a pity to disrupt the openZFS article. Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:21, 4 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't feel qualified to !vote on what should be done about the two articles covering three closely-related topics. But I find it disappointing that the two articles don't each do more to make the reader aware of the existence of the other. Maproom (talk) 06:25, 14 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor for the reasons mentioned by User:Djm-leighpark. I definitely agree with the position that we have an unnecessary fork here. I'd be happy with an article about ZFS which briefly mentions the history of the different implementations, and then goes into technical details, and a separate article about the history of the projects. --Slashme (talk) 06:10, 15 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refactor, per nom. “WarKosign” 07:38, 17 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment ...disingenuous... and that article portrays ZFS as an Oracle product, and written by Oracle -- Yes it is Oracle's product and nothing disingenuous in stating this (besides the fact it was developed by Sun and a bit of tweaking by Sun again but within Oracle). Forks have their own names. On the contrary, it is disingenous to overpomote forks, which are just tweaking of the major invention by Sun. Yes, Support refactoring everywhere where articles are long. Refactoring must be done per WP:Summary style. (1) Main article must describe the essentials (Origin, basic description, development history). (2) Technical detail common to all flavors (such as " Inappropriately specified systems" and "ZFS terminology and storage structure") is separate page. (3) Tables of forks and supported OSes is a separate page. (4) Significant forks are separate pages. (5) And of course PROVIDE THE FREAKING REFERENCES! Staszek Lem (talk) 17:57, 25 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Close by opener

Thanks everyone who contributed. I left the RFC open a while (almost 4 weeks) to get decent response levels.

As the consensus is pretty clear and it doesn't look like anyone else is planning to close it, I've closed it myself. If anyone wants to reopen and get an uninvolved close, that's fine by me.

I've started an article to address the fairly clear consensus, at History and implementations of ZFS, if anyone's interested. It'll take a bit of time, but in a while it'll be a decent article in its own right, and then the existing articles can be sorted out and link to it, completing the RFC consensus. Please do help! FT2 (Talk | email) 13:05, 30 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Separating ZFS and OpenZFS

Hi, fellow Wikipedians!

As ZFS is a trademark belonging to Oracle, I don't think it's appropriate to lump together the open-source fork and the closed-source repo. Besides, the development of Oracle ZFS is pretty much unknown now because of its closed-source nature. Any publicly available feature additions should go to OpenZFS. Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:24, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advice and glossary removed

I removed glossary and advice in these edits:[1][2][3]

It's not the purpose of Wikipedia to teach how to use ZFS. If anyone is interested in writing a detailed guide to ZFS, they can post it on the OpenZFS wiki or on Wikibooks. There are some manuals for open-source projects on Wikibooks already.

As noted in WP:!:

Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not an instruction manual, guidebook, or textbook. Wikipedia articles should not read like:

  1. Instruction manuals. While Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places and things, an article should not read like a "how-to" style owner's manual, cookbook, advice column (legal, medical or otherwise) or suggestion box. This includes tutorials, instruction manuals, game guides, and recipes. Describing to the reader how people or things use or do something is encyclopedic; instructing the reader in the imperative mood about how to use or do something is not.[1] Such guides may be welcome at Wikibooks instead.
  2. Textbooks and annotated texts. Wikipedia is an encyclopedic reference, not a textbook. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present facts, not to teach subject matter. It is not appropriate to create or edit articles that read as textbooks, with leading questions and systematic problem solutions as examples. These belong on our sister projects, such as Wikibooks, Wikisource, and Wikiversity. Some kinds of examples, specifically those intended to inform rather than to instruct, may be appropriate for inclusion in a Wikipedia article.

Tomskyhaha (talk) 01:38, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ The how-to restriction does not apply to the project namespace, where "how-to"s relevant to editing Wikipedia itself are appropriate, such as Wikipedia:How to draw a diagram with Dia.

Requested move 18 May 2020

Oracle ZFS → ZFS – Undiscussed controversial major move of ZFS Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a contested technical request. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 11:09, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard ... this is all back to front. At 18 May 2020 Tomskyhaha moved ZFS to Oracle ZFS without discussion on [4]. That may have been good move, but it can also have been a rubbish move and should have been discussed in my opinion. IT may well be supported, I may even support it myself. But it is not a move I would have expected to see without discussion. ZFS (Oracle filesystem) would be a more appropriate name perhaps if it was to be moved from ZFS. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Anthony Appleyard No, Oracle ZFS is not the dominant meaning of the initials ZFS. As of 2020, Oracle has all but ceased development and marketing on its proprietary implementation, which is only available on Solaris, a platform of which Oracle has laid off all core development staff back in 2017.[1] ZFS mostly refers to OpenZFS and its implementations on different platforms. OpenZFS is under active development. Tomskyhaha (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a better solution? I came here after trying to fix {{File systems}}, which now links to a redirect to the dab. In particular, I looked at the link under encryption (dubious, since that's not a key feature of ZFS) and found OpenZFS#Encryption to be a clone of Oracle ZFS#Encryption (just like the software it describes). Are readers best served by having two articles here, or should they be merged to form one article called ZFS which is the clear primary topic for the term? Certes (talk) 16:01, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Votes

Pinging recent contributors on this page: Staszek Lem, FT2, WarKosign, Slashme, Maproom. Tomskyhaha (talk) 16:13, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Tomskyhaha: My key concern was there should have been concensus for this move prior to it being actioned; and probably should have been moved back from once there is a concern; now it hasn't been, and ignoring the "proposal" here, (Maybe I screwed up parameter order and section at [5]) the question really is: Should this article have remained under the name "ZFS", or is everyone happy with the move to "Oracle ZFS", or should the name have been ":ZFS (Oracle filesystem)", or should the name be something else? Djm-leighpark (talk) 17:34, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Djm-leighpark: Perhaps we should wait for a week or two before making conclusions on the suitability of the article name. Obviously there hasn't been enough people aware of this change. Tomskyhaha (talk) 00:44, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tomskyhaha The worst thing to be done is swinging it back and forth. The fact there has been no uproar, apart from me, implies the people and Larry are not immediately happy with "Oracle ZFS", but yes, best to wait a week or two for further responses.
Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 02:47, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: Keep the status quo that each article on this topic has its own specific name: there's no article which unambiguously is the main topic for the three letter acronym ZFS. I would prefer the disambiguation page to be moved to ZFS, leaving ZFS_(disambiguation) as a redirect to ZFS, but I don't feel that strongly about that aspect. --Slashme (talk) 04:43, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (a significant main article at "ZFS"). Well over 500 pages already link to the three-letter "ZFS", mostly expecting to find some sort of technical article about the filesystem. I suspect very few of those links are bothered in the slightest about trademarks, commercial takeovers and other squabbles; they simply want something technical at the end of the link. Feline Hymnic (talk) 15:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that "ZFS-type file systems" is the dominant meaning, but that topic doesn't have a single article. Certes (talk) 15:37, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Certes: (1) There are some major problems with both Oracle ZFS and OpenZFS, one of those is not drawing a clear distinction between the two filesystems. Take encryption for example: encryption was not added in Oracle ZFS until pool version 30 in 2012 (the last open-source release was version 28, released in 2011).[3] Encryption was added[4] in 2019 at version 0.8 (pool version 5000) in ZFS on Linux (a distribution of OpenZFS, which itself is transitioning to OpenZFS on Linux and FreeBSD[5]) These two are incompatible in every way, yet the articles failed to differentiate the two filesystems. （2) About the duplicates in OpenZFS: Most of the technical contents in OpenZFS was copied from Oracle ZFS by myself[6] as a starting point separating them. Before that[7], OpenZFS was mostly about the project. （3） In my opinion ZFS now mostly refers to OpenZFS, as Oracle ZFS is only supported on Solaris, a platform discontinued in 2017. People are using OpenZFS on Linux, FreeBSD and other platforms, not the Oracle one. Tomskyhaha (talk) 22:42, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Feline Hymnic: As noted above, the problem is not just the trademarks: the two are technically incompatible. A ZFS pool created with later Oracle ZFS could not be used on (OpenZFS) ZFS on Linux, 50% of the code was rewritten, etc. Tomskyhaha (talk) 23:03, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Varghese, Sam (2017-09-04). "Bye, bye Solaris, it was a nice ride while it lasted". ITWire. Retrieved 2019-07-21.
  2. ^ "ZFS and OpenZFS". iXSystems. Retrieved 2020-05-18. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)
  3. ^ "Install ZFS on Debian GNU/Linux". Aaron Toponce. 2012-04-17. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
  4. ^ "zfs-0.8.0 release". Github. 2019-05-23. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
  5. ^ Siebenmann, Chris (2020-04-12). "ZFS on Linux has now become the OpenZFS ZFS implementation". Chris Siebenmann. Retrieved 2020-05-20.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Oracle_ZFS&oldid=957708896"