Date: Tue, 07 May 2019 15:02:01 +1000 From: Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> To: Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> Cc: freebsd-stable <freebsd-stable@freebsd.org> Subject: Re: ZFS... Message-ID: <A535026E-F9F6-4BBA-8287-87EFD02CF207@sorbs.net> In-Reply-To: <33D7EFC4-5C15-4FE0-970B-E6034EF80BEF@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> References: <30506b3d-64fb-b327-94ae-d9da522f3a48@sorbs.net> <CAOtMX2gf3AZr1-QOX_6yYQoqE-H%2B8MjOWc=eK1tcwt5M3dCzdw@mail.gmail.com> <56833732-2945-4BD3-95A6-7AF55AB87674@sorbs.net> <3d0f6436-f3d7-6fee-ed81-a24d44223f2f@netfence.it> <17B373DA-4AFC-4D25-B776-0D0DED98B320@sorbs.net> <70fac2fe3f23f85dd442d93ffea368e1@ultra-secure.de> <70C87D93-D1F9-458E-9723-19F9777E6F12@sorbs.net> <CAGMYy3tYqvrKgk2c==WTwrH03uTN1xQifPRNxXccMsRE1spaRA@mail.gmail.com> <5ED8BADE-7B2C-4B73-93BC-70739911C5E3@sorbs.net> <d0118f7e-7cfc-8bf1-308c-823bce088039@denninger.net> <2e4941bf-999a-7f16-f4fe-1a520f2187c0@sorbs.net> <20190430102024.E84286@mulder.mintsol.com> <41FA461B-40AE-4D34-B280-214B5C5868B5@punkt.de> <20190506080804.Y87441@mulder.mintsol.com> <08E46EBF-154F-4670-B411-482DCE6F395D@sorbs.net> <33D7EFC4-5C15-4FE0-970B-E6034EF80BEF@gromit.dlib.vt.edu>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Michelle Sullivan http://www.mhix.org/ Sent from my iPad > On 07 May 2019, at 10:53, Paul Mather <paul@gromit.dlib.vt.edu> wrote: >=20 >> On May 6, 2019, at 10:14 AM, Michelle Sullivan <michelle@sorbs.net> wrote= : >>=20 >> My issue here (and not really what the blog is about) FreeBSD is defaulti= ng to it. >=20 > You've said this at least twice now in this thread so I'm assuming you're a= sserting it to be true. >=20 > As of FreeBSD 12.0-RELEASE (and all earlier releases), FreeBSD does NOT de= fault to ZFS. >=20 > The images distributed by freebsd.org, e.g., Vagrant boxes, ARM images, EC= 2 instances, etc., contain disk images where FreeBSD resides on UFS. For ex= ample, here's what you end up with when you launch a 12.0-RELEASE instance u= sing defaults on AWS (us-east-1 region: ami-03b0f822e17669866): >=20 > root@freebsd:/usr/home/ec2-user # gpart show > =3D> 3 20971509 ada0 GPT (10G) > 3 123 1 freebsd-boot (62K) > 126 20971386 2 freebsd-ufs (10G) >=20 > And this is what you get when you "vagrant up" the freebsd/FreeBSD-12.0-RE= LEASE box: >=20 > root@freebsd:/home/vagrant # gpart show > =3D> 3 65013755 ada0 GPT (31G) > 3 123 1 freebsd-boot (62K) > 126 2097152 2 freebsd-swap (1.0G) > 2097278 62914560 3 freebsd-ufs (30G) > 65011838 1920 - free - (960K) >=20 >=20 > When you install from the 12.0-RELEASE ISO, the first option listed during= the partitioning stage is "Auto (UFS) Guided Disk Setup". The last option= listed---after "Open a shell and partition by hand" is "Auto (ZFS) Guided R= oot-on-ZFS". In other words, you have to skip over UFS and manual partition= ing to select the ZFS install option. >=20 > So, I don't see what evidence there is that FreeBSD is defaulting to ZFS. = It hasn't up to now. Will FreeBSD 13 default to ZFS? >=20 Umm.. well I install by memory stick images and I had a 10.2 and an 11.0 bot= h of which had root on zfs as the default.. I had to manually change them. I= haven=E2=80=99t looked at anything later... so did something change? Am I= in cloud cookoo land? >=20 >> FreeBSD used to be targeted at enterprise and devs (which is where I foun= d it)... however the last few years have been a big push into the consumer (= compete with Linux) market.. so you have an OS that concerns itself with the= desktop and upgrade after upgrade after upgrade (not just patching security= issues, but upgrades as well.. just like windows and OSX)... I get it.. the= money is in the keeping of the user base.. but then you install a file syst= em which is dangerous on a single disk by default... dangerous because it=E2= =80=99s trusted and =E2=80=9Ccan=E2=80=99t fail=E2=80=9D .. until it goes ti= tsup.com and then the entire drive is lost and all the data on it.. it=E2=80= =99s the double standard... advocate you need ECC ram, multiple vdevs etc, t= hen single drive it.. sorry.. which one is it? Gaaaaaarrrrrrrgggghhhhhhh! >=20 >=20 > As people have pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it's false to claim t= hat ZFS is unsafe on consumer hardware. It's no less safe than UFS on singl= e-disk setups. >=20 > Because anecdote is not evidence, I will refrain from saying, "I've lost f= ar more data on UFS than I have on ZFS (especially when SUJ was shaking out i= ts bugs)..." >;-) >=20 > What I will agree with is that, probably due to its relative youth, ZFS ha= s less forensics/data recovery tools than UFS. I'm sure this will improve a= s time goes on. (I even posted a link to an article describing someone addi= ng ZFS support to a forensics toolkit earlier in this thread.) The problem I see with that statement is that the zfs dev mailing lists cons= tantly and consistently following the line of, the data is always right ther= e is no need for a =E2=80=9Cfsck=E2=80=9D (which I actually get) but it=E2=80= =99s used to shut down every thread... the irony is I=E2=80=99m now installi= ng windows 7 and SP1 on a usb stick (well it=E2=80=99s actually installed, b= ut sp1 isn=E2=80=99t finished yet) so I can install a zfs data recovery tool= which reports to be able to =E2=80=9Cwalk the data=E2=80=9D to retrieve all= the files... the irony eh... install windows7 on a usb stick to recover a = FreeBSD installed zfs filesystem... will let you know if the tool works, bu= t as it was recommended by a dev I=E2=80=99m hopeful... have another array (= with zfs I might add) loaded and ready to go... if the data recovery is succ= essful I=E2=80=99ll blow away the original machine and work out what OS and d= rive setup will be safe for the data in the future. I might even put FreeBS= D and zfs back on it, but if I do it won=E2=80=99t be in the current Zraid2 c= onfig. >=20 > Cheers, >=20 > Paul.
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?A535026E-F9F6-4BBA-8287-87EFD02CF207>