10.9 support survey

Developer discussions.

10.9 support survey

Postby nodarkthings » Thu Aug 01, 2019 1:59 am

As I've read in another thread:
lundman wrote:we did announce in 1.9.0 that we are dropping 10.8 and 10.9 - although I'm surprised at how many people wants mavericks. I could probably be persuaded to compile 10.9 for 1.9.1

I propose that anyone interested in keeping a 10.9 build tells it here. ;)
I am personally interested as I'm sharing my pools between 10.11 and 10.9.

On the other hand: if 10.9 is really dropped, I suppose I'll still be able to share my pools between 10.11 and 10.9 as long as I don't upgrade them, right?
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby Wowfunhappy » Fri Mar 20, 2020 2:49 pm

I'm running Mavericks and OpenZFS, so I'm definitely interested.

1.9.2 has a Mavericks installer, so that's what I'm using. Looks like I'll be staying on that version...
Wowfunhappy
 
Posts: 33
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2018 11:58 am

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby nodarkthings » Fri Mar 20, 2020 3:34 pm

Hi!
Yes, given the huge success of this survey :mrgreen: I suppose we'll have to stick to 1.9.2...
Currently, there's no issue for me sharing pools between 1.9.3 on 10.11 and 1.9.2 on 10.9 as there are no new features that need the pools to be upgraded — and it should stay the same if there are new versions for 10.11 as long as I don't upgrade my pools.
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby RJVB » Mon Mar 08, 2021 8:02 am

FWIW, 1.9.4 builds and runs fine on 10.9.5

EDIT: I should add that I did have to write a script to export pools:

Code: Select all
> cat ~/script/zpool_export
#!/usr/bin/env bash

zpool sync "$@"
RES=`zpool export "$@" 2>&1`
while [ $? != 0 ] ;do
        if [[ "$RES" != *"no such pool"* ]] ;then
                echo "$RES"
                echo "> zpool export $@"
                RES=`zpool export "$@" 2>&1`
        fi
done
echo "$RES"


for some reason most if not all of my pools are never exported after a single export command, but that's been the case for a few releases before 1.9.4 already.
RJVB
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby nodarkthings » Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:31 am

Interesting. I suppose you need Xcode for building? (I know nothing about Xcode but I have Command Line Tools 6.2, would it be enough?)
Otherwise, can you share your build in some way?
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby RJVB » Mon Mar 08, 2021 9:58 am

One needs Xcode or at least the CLT installed in order to build anything on Mac but I do use a more recent clang from MacPorts. I also build via a Portfile with a few custom patches (e.g. to disable any form of auto-mounting) and against dependencies in MacPorts so sharing a binary build is probably not the best idea. But I can post a build recipe and what patches are required.

However, doesn't the installer image contain a .pkg for 10.9? I seem to recall it does but am not at my Mac right now so can't check.

I can confirm something also observed by another user: 1.9.4 feels snappier than older versions, even with ARC settings really low to minimise memory overhead. I also cannot recall having any KPs that were a direct result of using ZFS but I don't really use it that often and typically unload the kexts when done because I do have an impression that just having those loaded makes the system a bit less stable.
RJVB
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby nodarkthings » Mon Mar 08, 2021 10:10 am

No, 1.9.4 has no package for 10.9, otherwise I'd use it. ;)
Never mind, 1.9.2 works ok for me and I don't want to spend too much time just for the sake of incrementing version number. :mrgreen:
Thanks anyway. :)
nodarkthings
 
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jan 26, 2015 10:32 am

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby RJVB » Mon Mar 08, 2021 1:54 pm

I presume you've already built this software before; if so, building 1.9.4 shouldn't cost that much more time;

I have a patch for testing for libblkid, making it use the `coreutils` versions of `mktemp` and `truncate` (from MacPorts). That one may be moot, I can't really tell:

Code: Select all
diff --git a/config/user-libblkid.m4 b/config/user-libblkid.m4
index 2dd26238c..ecfd3972e 100644
--- a/config/user-libblkid.m4
+++ b/config/user-libblkid.m4
@@ -35,8 +35,8 @@ AC_DEFUN([ZFS_AC_CONFIG_USER_LIBBLKID], [
       [
          AC_MSG_CHECKING([for blkid zfs support])
 
-         ZFS_DEV=`mktemp`
-         truncate -s 64M $ZFS_DEV
+         ZFS_DEV=`gmktemp`
+         gtruncate -s 64M $ZFS_DEV
          echo -en "\x0c\xb1\xba\0\0\0\0\0" | \
             dd of=$ZFS_DEV bs=1k count=8 \
             seek=128 conv=notrunc &>/dev/null \


and then one to make spl build on 10.10 and earlier:

Code: Select all
diff --git a/module/spl/KernelExports/zfs.exports b/module/spl/KernelExports/zfs.exports
index 4cd7d517b86e529bcb10eb0383d2ef7d242dd008..ec65a98393b8c500afb120a1e1620ba9029dfbb6 100644
--- a/spl-4d1859e3060bc1991d10d9215a3d1845e7caeaf8/module/spl/KernelExports/zfs.exports
+++ b/spl-4d1859e3060bc1991d10d9215a3d1845e7caeaf8/module/spl/KernelExports/zfs.exports
@@ -29,8 +29,6 @@ _kauth_cred_getgroups
 _rootvnode
 _decmpfs_decompress_file
 _decmpfs_file_is_compressed
-_decmpfs_cnode_alloc
-_decmpfs_cnode_free
 _decmpfs_cnode_init
 _decmpfs_cnode_destroy
 _cpuid_info


I make certain that the matching SDK is used by passing `-mmacosx-version-min=10.9` to the configure script.
RJVB
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby RJVB » Tue Mar 09, 2021 3:09 am

As to 10.9 support in later versions... I notice (at least) 2 missing kernel symbols that block the 2.0.0.1 release build. One of them an in-kernel qsort which I suppose could be replaced with another qsort. The other, `znode_iocount` seems more problematic because it takes me farther out of my comfort zone. I did see a commit message that mentions a work-around for that symbol missing on "Big Sur", so there may be hope there.

Either way, the main reason I see to run the 2.x series beyond keeping up is the new `log_spacemap` feature that `improves performance for heavily-fragmented pools`. That's definitely something I'd like to use with my Linux ZFS pools (I use ZFS as my main fs so fragmentation is always an issue) but I'd want to maintain compatibility with my Mac system.

Maybe that performance increase isn't that noticeable under normal, mere-mortal working conditions (as in, does it need industrial amounts of RAM or terabytes of diskspace before your start noticing it)? Or maybe the feature can be disabled if you need write-access from an earlier ZFS version?
RJVB
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 12:32 pm

Re: 10.9 support survey

Postby Markospokus » Wed Mar 10, 2021 7:35 am

I'd like to see it there for 10.9, I may use it, maybe if it's for new build and 2nd, 3rd and built specifically if needed after that.
Markospokus
 
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Feb 24, 2017 5:08 am

Next

Return to OpenZFS on OS X Development

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

cron