[arch-general] Update to 4.15.8 on dual quad-core box locked on ( 3/16) Install DKMS modules, need help resurecting

Leonid Isaev leonid.isaev at jila.colorado.edu
Mon Mar 12 22:57:48 UTC 2018

On Mon, Mar 12, 2018 at 10:24:37PM +0000, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> On 3/12/18, Eli Schwartz via arch-general <arch-general at archlinux.org> wrote:
> > On 03/11/2018 10:00 PM, Carsten Mattner via arch-general wrote:
> >> I'm happy to hear that. My rationale is based on past observations
> >> of needlessly heated arguments and ZFS, due to its license splitting
> >> the Linux community in half, appearing to be perfect fuel for such
> >> a thread.
> >>
> >> Thanks for the wiki links. Never used ZFS on Linux because I avoid
> >> out of kernel patches. Maybe I will give it a try on Linux as well.
> >
> > Well yes, the main reason people get heated about it I think is because
> > it is out-of-tree kernel modules and as such are less reliably stable or
> > some such.
> >
> > Based on how well archzfs keeps their binary repos up to date, I'm not
> > 100% convinced on the stability. Moreso consider that it's difficult to
> > bootstrap a system without zfs available, and if their binary repo does
> > not match the current archiso...
> I'll stay away from it, thanks. I saw that Alpine Linux has good ZFS
> support, but I didn't do anything serious with it. When it comes to
> filesystems, I'm conservative, EXT4 and XFS on Linux. It's a pity
> there's no modern filesystem to share volumes between FOSS kernels.
> It's all some compromise that you might or might not accept.

What's wrong with btrfs? Yeah, I know it is not marked "stable", but this is
just a label. And people shying away from it doesn't help in advancing its
stability either.

Leonid Isaev

More information about the arch-general mailing list