[Users] SIMFS users

Wed Jul 22 01:03:11 PDT 2015

We are using simfs because ploop do not support 16+ TB partitions. Please
do not drop simfs support.

2015-07-22 8:47 GMT+03:00 Kir Kolyshkin <kir at openvz.org>:

>
>
> On 07/21/2015 07:56 PM, Scott Dowdle wrote:
>
>> Greetings,
>>
>> ----- Original Message -----
>>
>>> ZFS is really "The Last Word in File Systems",
>>> and now you can just use it for free,
>>> without reinventing the wheel.
>>>
>>> OpenVZ + ZFS or Virtuozzo + ZFS == atom bomb,
>>> killer feature with horrible devastation power.
>>>
>>> Or - you just forcing users to migrate from OpenVZ
>>> to CentOS+KVM over ZFS and/or CentOS+Docker over ZFS.
>>>
>> Whatever.  So many ZFS users seem to be such fanatics they will abandon
>> anything that gets in its way... while none of the top 10 Linux distros
>> will ship it.  Folks like Jesse Smith from Distrowatch say there is nothing
>> wrong with distros shipping ZFS... as long as it continues to be packaged
>> separately from the kernel (a module rather than compiled in)... but
>> still... no one ships it.  I believe Debian is working on changing that and
>> I wish them luck.
>>
>> I've tried it.  I've read the recipes.  Some say you have to dedicate 1GB
>> of RAM for every TB of storage.  To build a high performance ZFS-based
>> fileserver you really want to custom design the thing with the right
>> combination of read cache disks, write cache disks, etc.  It has
>> compression, encryption, dedup (not sure if that is in the Linux version
>> yet), etc.  I'm guessing if you just want to ZFS for local stuff (VMs,
>> containers, server applications, etc) you don't have to worry as much
>> getting an optimal setup as you would for a dedicated fileserver.
>>
>
> I second that. ZFS seems to be pretty hungry for RAM, and the requirements
> are even higher if you like deduplication feature to work. That means
> either
> lower container density (you can run less CTs if you use ploop), or higher
> memory
> requirements (you need more RAM to run same amount of CTs on ZFS).
>
>>
>> I haven't really had a reason to use it.  ZFS + OpenVZ = atomic bomb?
>> Whatever.
>>
>> I'd prefer to see BTRFS mature... and once that is in every Linux distro
>> by default... and widely deployed... I don't think ZFS will be that
>> relevant except among the fanatics.  Now having said that I realize it
>> could take years before BTRFS is considered good enough by most folks.  I
>> certain hope it doesn't take that long but who knows?  No need to tell me
>> how much BTRFS sucks and ZFS rocks.
>>
>> Please don't provide me with why ZFS is the god of filesystems.  I've
>> heard it all before.  If you use and like all of those features and ZFS
>> works great for you... go for it... more power to you.
>>
>> Regarding OpenVZ checkpoint / restore and live migration... it has worked
>> well for me since it was originally released in 2007 (or was it 2008?).
>> While I've had a few kernel panics in the almost 10 years I've been using
>> OpenVZ (starting with the EL4-based kernel)... I can't remember what year I
>> had my last one.
>>
>> I see people come into the #openvz IRC channel with bugs all of the
>> time.  The vast majority of the time it turns out they are way behind the
>> current stable versions of the vzkernel and vzctl.  They really do fix bugs
>> in every release so why people seem to think it is ok to ignore updates for
>> months or years is beyond me.  I have no idea if you do or not... but
>> hopefully you can feel my pain.  Are there bugs in the bug reporting
>> system?  Sure.  People say Debian is the most stable Linux distro around
>> (I'm not a Debian user) but if you look in their but reporting system I'm
>> sure there are thousands (or more likely, tens of thousands) of bug
>> reports.  I guess one should expect that with tens of thousands of
>> packages... but my point is there will always be bugs... but to point at a
>> bug report and give up saying that it isn't stable because of bug report
>> x... or that some people have had panics at some point in history... well,
>> that isn't very reflective of the overall picture!
>>
> . !
>
>>    Nothing personal.  We just disagree on a few topics.  We probably
>> agree on way more things though.
>>
>> I don't use checkpoint and restore directly... but do with vzmigrate.
>> Every time I upgrade vzkernel I use live migration... so I can have as much
>> container uptime as possible.  I've had a few times when live migration
>> didn't work but in every case it failed safely and I was able to do an
>> offline migration instead.  The times it didn't work were when my CPUs
>> differed greatly between hosts... or the vzkernel I was running differed
>> too much (I run testing kernels on a host or two).  If you don't have a use
>> for offline nor online migration... ok... but lots of people do use it...
>> and if ZFS means it can't be used... that is just another reason (for me)
>> not to use ZFS.
>>
>> TYL,
>>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Users mailing list
> Users at openvz.org
> https://lists.openvz.org/mailman/listinfo/users
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.openvz.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20150722/0003a94f/attachment.html>