Package Details: zfs-linux 2.3.1_6.13.8.arch1.1-1

Git Clone URL: https://aur.archlinux.org/zfs-linux.git (read-only, click to copy)
Package Base: zfs-linux
Description: Kernel modules for the Zettabyte File System.
Upstream URL: https://openzfs.org/
Keywords: kernel linux openzfs zfs
Licenses: CDDL
Groups: archzfs-linux
Conflicts: spl-dkms, spl-dkms-git, spl-linux, zfs-dkms, zfs-dkms-git, zfs-dkms-rc, zfs-linux-git, zfs-linux-rc
Provides: spl, zfs
Replaces: spl-linux
Submitter: demizer
Maintainer: lightdot
Last Packager: lightdot
Votes: 275
Popularity: 0.87
First Submitted: 2016-04-21 08:45 (UTC)
Last Updated: 2025-03-25 23:55 (UTC)

Required by (19)

Sources (1)

Pinned Comments

lightdot commented on 2025-02-04 21:19 (UTC) (edited on 2025-03-29 20:47 (UTC) by lightdot)

This package will be kept in sync with the openzfs latest stable release and the kernels officially supported by it.

For the supported kernel versions, refer to the respective openzfs release notes (LINK).

E.g. openzfs 2.3.1 supports kernel versions 4.18 - 6.13. When kernel 6.14 is released for Arch, zfs-linux will not be updated until the openzfs project announces that it's compatible. This will most likely happen with the next openzfs release.

The kernel compatibility of the upcoming openzfs release can be seen in their META file (LINK).

For those wishing to use openzfs with unsupported kernels, do note that this could lead to serious issues, including data loss, even though such a zfs-linux package might build and install cleanly. Have reliable backups and use such a package at your peril.

Please do not mark this package as out of date without checking the kernel compatibility first. Thank you!

Latest Comments

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .. 79 Next › Last »

cmtonkinson commented on 2015-01-12 21:13 (UTC)

For what it's worth, it's my understanding that ZFS is no more or less susceptible to damage from RAM bitflips than any other filesystem.

kerberizer commented on 2015-01-12 21:08 (UTC)

@NoSuck, the problem with ECC is that you would want it everywhere your data happens to be at some point of time or another: including all buses that it traverses. I have yet to see such implementations even on servers (not saying they don't exist, just that I've never encountered such in my practice), and it's certainly not something that you could find on any desktop. In other words, ECC memory saves you from yet one more place where your data can go corrupt -- and a very important and vulnerable place, indeed -- but that's it. To say that without ECC memory ZFS is pointless, and vice versa, that with ECC memory and ZFS a system is bulletproof against bit-flips and other data corruption is, mildly speaking, unprofessional.

kerberizer commented on 2015-01-12 21:01 (UTC)

@NoSuck, I do -- and have used it for more than 5 years now on my desktop (first two years on FreeBSD, two years on Ubuntu, and the last year on Arch). It's certainly better to use ECC memory, but it's not a strict requirement either.

NoSuck commented on 2015-01-12 21:00 (UTC)

@senorsmile Thanks. A lot of the documentation seems to stress the importance of ECC to the point of making ZFS seem pointless without it--though I suppose now that such documentation is aimed at large-scale server admins. (Original post, deleted because demizer mentioned using non-ECC RAM in a previous comment.) @demizer Do you (or anyone else) use ZFS with non-ECC RAM? I'd love to use ECC RAM, but my current mobo doesn't support it.

graysky commented on 2015-01-12 20:56 (UTC)

Not a requirement, but recommended. I use zfs without ecc ram.

senorsmile commented on 2015-01-12 20:56 (UTC)

I have over a dozen machines running zfs withOUT ecc ram. For desktops/laptops, it's pretty much the norm. ECC ram helps you, especially with scrubs, but it's certainly not a requirement. Your data is still safer with zfs and nonecc ram than without zfs and nonecc ram.

demizer commented on 2015-01-08 22:24 (UTC)

@butler360 Did not know that existed! Thanks for the tip!

butler360 commented on 2015-01-08 22:12 (UTC)

You don't use mcelog demizer?

demizer commented on 2015-01-08 02:52 (UTC)

@Fardbdose, AFAIK the ZFS packages work best on x86_64 with lots of ECC ram. ZFS is ram intensive, especially when performing scrubs. Last year I had a scrub go bad when one of my ram modules died and I didn't recognize the symptoms (chromium tabs crashing for no reason). The bad memory caused the scrub to produce incorrect checksums which in turn caused the scrubbing process to attempt to recover the file, which failed. At the same time, one of my drives failed leaving me with a very degraded system. Amazingly, I was able to get back to a fully operational pool after replacing the drive and memory. After doing a second scrub process, only one file was unrecoverable, of which I restored from backups.

« First ‹ Previous 1 .. 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 .. 79 Next › Last »