Solved freebsd-zfs vs apple-zfs?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 66267
  • Start date
D

Deleted member 66267

Guest
What is the different between them? Prior to FreeBSD 13.0, gpart doesn't have apple-zfs. My guest is freebsd-zfs is used for the old implementation of ZFS and apple-zfs is used for OpenZFS. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
 
You're wrong. freebsd-zfs is used for FreeBSD, apple-zfs for Apple. Surprise.

Side note: apple-zfs could also be a Solaris /usr partition – they somehow use the same GUID for partition type.
 
failure said:
What is the different between them? Prior to FreeBSD 13.0, gpart doesn't have apple-zfs. My guest is freebsd-zfs is used for the old implementation of ZFS and apple-zfs is used for OpenZFS. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
Click to expand...
Are you trying to figure out technical nuances or are you having problems with it?
 
Mitlow said:
Zirias has written several differences. If you are interested in this topic, then I can give links to technical documentation.
Click to expand...
No. His information is enough. Now I know: freebsd-zfs is FreeBSD specific, apple-zfs is for Solaris/Illumos/Apple. Don't know if Linux (ZoL) also uses apple-zfs or not, though.
 
failure said:
/usr partition can also have a generic GUID? I think it should be one big root like on Linux and a separate /usr partition is just a trick!
Click to expand...
"like on Linux" is nonsense, sorry. Linux itself doesn't care how your tree is structured, so in the Linux world, this is entirely under the control of the distribution (aka its installer). Early dists often offered a separate /usr (and even recommended that as default). The thing is: /usr should never be needed for booting in single-user mode. You could even mount it from a separate network fs, or just a different local fs, and could still fix your system in case of trouble with THAT. I'm not sure every Linux distribution gets it correct nowadays and booting to single-user mode succeeds without /usr. But that's a different story. It sure works correctly on FreeBSD.
 
Zirias said:
Early dists often offered a separate /usr (and even recommended that as default).
Click to expand...
FreeBSD did too. The default (automatic) install had /, /usr, /var and /tmp as separate filesystems. I'm not exactly sure for which version this changed, but it wasn't too long ago. I want to say somewhere around the 8 or 9 era. If I recall correctly around the same time ZFS became an option with the installer.
 
Zirias said:
"like on Linux" is nonsense, sorry. Linux itself doesn't care how your tree is structured, so in the Linux world, this is entirely under the control of the distribution (aka its installer). Early dists often offered a separate /usr (and even recommended that as default). The thing is: /usr should never be needed for booting in single-user mode. You could even mount it from a separate network fs, or just a different local fs, and could still fix your system in case of trouble with THAT. I'm not sure every Linux distribution gets it correct nowadays and booting to single-user mode succeeds without /usr. But that's a different story. It sure works correctly on FreeBSD.
Click to expand...
Modern desktop Linux put everything into one single big root partition. There could be an optional separate home partition, and swap. This is a fact, not nonsense. Maybe I should use "Modern desktop Linux" instead of just Linux for it to be more clear.
 
SirDice said:
FreeBSD did too. The default (automatic) install had /, /usr, /var and /tmp as separate filesystems. I'm not exactly sure for which version this changed, but it wasn't too long ago. I want to say somewhere around the 8 or 9 era. If I recall correctly around the same time ZFS became an option with the installer.
Click to expand...
Something that like on OpenBSD? Oh man, I hate OpenBSD's default partitioning scheme. I have to accept it only because I have no knowledge about partitioning on BSDs. FreeBSD's installer is more nice, it follows one big root partition discipline. Multiple small partitions has a draw back that when you want to resize thing to make more room for one partition you have to do a backup, repartitioning and restore, it's pretty much like a new install. One big root partition user will never have to care about space, since everything is there. You will not run out of space on /var or /usr. The default partitioning scheme chosen by OpenBSD installer is very stupid, some partitions are too small to fit realistic use case. I hope I have the knowledge to do manual partitioning.
 
failure said:
Modern desktop Linux put everything into one single big root partition. There could be an optional separate home partition, and swap. This is a fact, not nonsense. Maybe I should use "Modern desktop Linux" instead of just Linux for it to be more clear.
Click to expand...
It's still nonsense. There's no such thing as "Modern desktop Linux". There are installers provided by distributions doing things the distributor thinks are a good idea.
 
One big root partition is indeed the most user friendly. On Linux, we don't care about being able to boot in single user mode. We have live systems with us on usb stick, either be graphical or cli, always ready. There are Linux distros that were made for just this purpose, rescue. Even if it's on a VPS, we could insert the live iso and boot with it, chroot into the system, fix everything and reboot. It's straight forward.

The fact is the FreeBSD installer now employs one big root partition also means FreeBSD now leaning towards more user friendly.
 
Zirias said:
It's still nonsense. There's no such thing as "Modern desktop Linux". There are installers provided by distributions doing things the distributor thinks are a good idea.
Click to expand...
Not at all. The installers of almost all Linux distros now, graphical or cli, now default to one big root partition. It's nothing wrong to sum it up as "Modern desktop Linux". The Debian cli installer also does one big root partition now if you don't choose to partition manually. One will not need anything other than one big root partition and one big swap partition. Some people even substitute swap partition with swap file, making a scheme similar to what was on Windows for years: one big root partition and one big page file on the partition.
 
SirDice said:
On Linux there's a thing called initrd or initramfs that's used for this.
Click to expand...
I know. On Solaris it's called as the boot archive. But I rarely used this. I have my graphical live usb always ready with me.
 
Zirias said:
Stop trolling. And then use a live usb stick on a server in some remote datacenter.
Click to expand...
I miss "Desktop". I mean "Desktop Linux". Stop accusing someone you don't like with a troll. Please. If I wanted to troll I want make it even more annoying.
 
SirDice said:
Now you're just deliberately trolling. You're walking on thin ice here, tread carefully.
Click to expand...
If it's not trolling but I actually think like that and it's my sincere words?
 
failure said:
The default partitioning scheme chosen by OpenBSD installer is very stupid, some partitions are too small to fit realistic use case. I hope I have the knowledge to do manual partitioning.
Click to expand...

OpenBSD splits up into different partitions so it can add security attributes to certain ones such as only allowing Write and Execute on /usr/local (for things like Python), and disabling device files on all but /dev.

I hate to say it, but they don't care about your use-case. Frankly, your use-case isn't entirely catered for by any unix-like operating system. Of course if you have patience and are willing to learn you can bend the OS to work for you but really the answer for user-friendliness is, just use Windows. It is basically free these days.

At least OpenBSD *has* an installer. Arch Linux doesn't and that is one of the most popular distros showing that user-friendlyness is not what everyone cares about when it comes to home / hobbyist computing.
 
kpedersen said:
OpenBSD splits up into different partitions so it can add security attributes to certain ones such as only allowing Write and Execute on /usr/local (for things like Python), and disabling device files on all but /dev.

I hate to say it, but they don't care about your use-case. Frankly, your use-case isn't entirely catered for by any unix-like operating system. Of course if you have patience and are willing to learn you can bend the OS to work for you but really the answer for user-friendliness is, just use Windows. It is basically free these days.

At least OpenBSD *has* an installer. Arch Linux doesn't and that is one of the most popular distros showing that user-friendlyness is not what everyone cares about when it comes to home / hobbyist computing.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure about that, though. Windows is never free. Do you mean free-trial?

Arch doesn't have installer, but what it has is plenty of spoonfed level tutorials on the internet. Just following predefined instructions, there is no different between what an installer does and what a human does.

Addition information about OpenBSD: only /usr/local was set to allow applications don't compatible with W^X to run. Sometimes I have to create a directory under /usr/local to test compiling and running of software ported from Linux (most doesn't care about that W^X stuff). There is no space left to create new partition and feared things will broken if I changed my home partition to behave like /usr/local. This is the reason why I always prefer FreeBSD because I think those security oriented OS only caused more problems for me that what they really worth.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top