ZFS on OSX vs ZFS on Windows

[gea]

I have no real preference when in comes to ZFS on OSX or ZFS on Windows. I welcome both but why

- is the Windows thread in this forum only visible after Login
- is the header always OpenZFS on OSX instead OpenZFS on OSX and Windows
- is the announcement of OSX on Windows rc2: Announcing the release of zfs-macOS-2.2.3, it is fairly close to upstream OpenZFS-2.2.3
- Is the Windows Wiki under OSX, https://openzfsonosx.org/wiki/Windows

Not a real problem, just wondering if the Windows port is not as important as the OSX port.

[jawbroken]

I think the Windows forum only being visible when logged in is just a configuration mistake. All of these (except the minor copy-paste mistake in the release notes) are explained by the fact that the Windows port was started long after the macOS port, by the same person/people, so they just reused the website and forums they had already set up.

[lundman]

Yep. Also, back then ilovezfs did the project leader stuff for me, like setting up the forum etc.
Now it is just me, and I was lazy, so instead of installing a separate wiki and forum for
Windows port, I just threw them together.

One day I was going to do things properly, but there seems to always be
"real" things to do, like bugs, fixes, upstream merge and so on.

[gea]

Thanks!
One serious question

Is ZFS ready on OSX or Windows in 2024 for general use?.

With the first builds of ZFS on OSX or Windows I said no. But since last year, builds seem quite completely upstream OpenZFS. Only missing point is number of users to find and fix last integration issues. At some point you must say, ok, driver is release 2024.x and Open-ZFS is 2.2.x. and it is as save or unsave as OpenZFS on other platforms. Use it as it is, it is no longer a rc beta but ongoing normal software development.

When do you expect this state is reached?

[jawbroken]

I've been using it for personal use on macOS for many years now with no serious issues. There were some stability issues with the early ARM versions, as you would expect, but I haven't had any problems with data integrity, etc.

[Haravikk]

Is ZFS ready on OSX or Windows in 2024 for general use?

I've been using v2.1.0 on macOS for years on several personal machines without any issues, but I've been completely unable to upgrade to a newer version of ZFS due to extreme performance issues rendering any version after v2.1.0 unusable on macOS.

Until that issue is fixed I cannot recommend using any of the newer versions, and really it needs to be fixed as a top priority because there's just no point releasing new versions when they're only usable for the simplest possible setups (a single zvol pool seems to work fine, but anything more complicated, especially with datasets, just cripples performance).

[gea]

There is one key aspect that becomes more and more important and this is performance from server to clients and server to backup especially when nics >10G become cheap. While a modern ZFS server can achieve 3 GB/s or more with NVMe, a client example for foto or videoediting hardly comes near over LAN. You are lucky when you are at 500-800 MB/s with a high CPU load and latency, not enough for 4/8k video editing even as a single user or to do a full pool backup in a decent time.

The key for superiour LAN performance is SMB direct with RDMA. This can multiply your LAN performance with a low latency and CPU load. For SMB direct you need RDMA capable nics 10G+, a SMB server that supports RDMA serverside and RDMA capable clients. In a small workgroup you can use nic to nic connectivity with DAC cables without an expensive Switch.

SMB direct/ RDMA was developped by Microsoft for Windows Server. As client you can use Windows 11 Pro. Using Microsoft Windows Server and Windows 11 clientside is currently the only solution that is proven for good security, stability and compatibility.

Only on Linux there is the upcoming ksmbd SMB server as an alternative to SAMBA that supports SMB direct serverside but without multichannel or AD support. Clientwise it seems unclear if or how good and stable BSD, Linux or OSX SMB clients support SMB direct.

What does this mean:
If you need a superiour and stable SMB Performance, think of a Windows workgroup with Windows Server and Windows 11 Pro clients with SMB direct. Hope a usable ZFS on Windows is soon part of Windows storage. Storage Spaces, while quite fast with correct settings is a pain compared to ZFS.

If you want to avoid Windows Server:
Use Proxmox with the ksmbd SMB server (RDMA capable)

apt install ksmbd-tools
modprobe ksmbd

Then create /etc/ksmbd/ksmbd.conf (SAMBA smb.conf alike settings)

Start/Stop:
root@pve:~# systemctl stop ksmbd
root@pve:~# systemctl start ksmbd
root@pve:~# systemctl restart ksmbd