Actually I think it is generally a good idea to upgrade to the last minor subversion (which has not regression issues which happens too sometimes, e.g. v0.7.7 and v0.7.10) after a new major is released.

For example v0.7.12 seems good for me on one host, also using v0.8.5 on another one because v0.7.12 could not handle zmirror split on it and resilvering got into an endless repeatable cycle, I waited about 4 times changing different parameters, before upgrade to 0.8.5 fixed this issue.

https://packages.debian.org/search?suit … ywords=zfs

Anyway, I am afraid of upgrading to it on critical hosts yet

It has been released in source only a few weeks ago, lets wait about a couple of months

I guess the best what Oracle can do 10 years later is to just steal the code from OpenZFS and resell in under its own brand. It is like a commercial Lindows Linux distro respin.

Even if it is not correct to compare Linux with Solaris, we still have different BSDs like FreeBSD and NetBSD which may be a better choice for a Solaris ZFS contest?

All BSDs like FreeBSD and NetBSD get their ZFS code now from the same ZOL OpenZFS upstream developed by the ZOL team.

What do you mean under device removal?
Does not ZOL v0.8.x allow to push out a vdev mirror from the pool? I tested it, works fine btw.

Is not OpenZFS v2 fork of ZFS on Linux the most up to date and only one which actually gets any recent development?

ZoL is now the only open source version that is receiving significant development but Solaris ZFS (which is now proprietary) is also developed and still has some features missing from ZoL such as sequential resilver, better deduplication, device and vdev removal. Roughly 50% of the original Solaris code has been replaced in ZoL. Only Solaris really know what they're doing with ZFS though because they created it.

And yes, OpenIndiana appear to use ZoL as well. TIL.

bimon wrote:

Do you have any experience with the latest OpenZFS v2.x?

No. ZoL is a hacky mess, the only true ZFS implementation is the Solaris version.

EDIT: have you tried OpenIndiana?

I tried Nexenta about 10 years ago and then about 7 years ago I tried OpenIndiana.

Also I began to use ZOL since about 2012 and find it very reliable for me so far, it survived different  electromagnetic attacks on my storage from power line.
Pools generally died only a few days or weeks after the attack so that I had time to backup via replication and then restore back.
I would loose all my valuable data tens of times already if I would not have saint ZOL in use.

Now I have a very long chain of different filters and separating voltage transformers (about 10 items in total) in my power line and attacks are not effective anymore, I did not see any checksum errors a few months already.

Thanks very much to developers of ZFS on Linux who saved me from many problems!

Is not OpenZFS v2 fork of ZFS on Linux the most up to date and only one which actually gets any recent development?
As far as I know other BSDs now just get ZFS code from OpenZFS v2 (portable ZOL) upstream, they do not develop ZFS by themselves anymore, most likely it is the same for Illumos (OpenSolaris) forks like SmartOS, OpenIndiana, etc. ?

an approximated not obligatory estimate of when can we expect OpenZFS v2.x in Devuan Beowulf backports?

As soon as it is available from buster-backports :-)

The last release (v0.8.6) was backported 5 days after it transitioned to testing and the current version landed in testing 5 days ago so...

No. ZoL is a hacky mess, the only true ZFS implementation is the Solaris version.

EDIT: have you tried OpenIndiana?

Please let me know your idea about an approximated not obligatory estimate of when can we expect OpenZFS v2.x in Devuan Beowulf backports?

What I actually need is its feature of a persistent L2ARC.
I am not going to use it for a critical data in backups but it may be good for a server which is replicated often to a more old and stable ZFS version.

I guess it would be a great pleasure to start relatively heavy KVM virtual machines from persistent L2ARC very fast after rebooting the server having storage pool?

I refer to these packages:

https://packages.debian.org/search?suit … ywords=zfs

Will not this feature of persistent L2ARC appear in the 0.8.x branch of ZFS on Linux earlier?

Do you have any experience with the latest OpenZFS v2.x?

Is it less stable and/or reliable on Linux (I do not care about BSD right now) than ZFS on Linux v0.7.12 and/or v0.8.5  ?