anyone compile and install ZFS manually?

[Phil Marsh]

Hi Sean,
Thanks for your input.
Yes, but I generally avoid the non-LTS versions of Ubuntu. Not sure if this
is necessary or not as I generally upgrade via a fresh install. Maybe
that's dumb.
Also, I back up my OS and can revert to an earlier OS - i.e. prior to the
ZFS upgrade.
I'm going to try to uninstall and roll back to the original ZFS 2.1.5 on my
Ubuntu test machine from ZFS 2.2.2. I did not upgrade the pools. Perhaps
I'll wind up with a good original ZFS 2.1.5 by doing this so I can then
feel confident that if ZFS 2.2.2 doesn't work like I want, I can always go
back?
I will avoid upgrading my pools maybe until we get LTS 23.04 available.
Unfortunately, the 24.04 uses ZFS 2.2.0 which has its own bug. I'm left
wondering why Ubuntu is so slow to upgrade ZFS? I'm thinking it's more a
lack of people power than trying to avoid unproven new software and that's
understandable.
Thanks,
Phil

On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:42 PM Sean Reifschneider <jafo00 at gmail.com> wrote:

> FYI: Ubuntu 23.10 has zfs 2.2.0rc3 in it and the branch that they are
> working toward for 24.04 has 2.2.2.  Personally, I'd probably be looking at
> running 23.10 with an upgrade to 24.04 when it's available for something
> production if I needed a newer ZFS for anything production, than rolling a
> "make install".  Just throwing out that option.
>
> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 1:39 PM Phil Marsh <microcraftx at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi Stephen, all,
>> It appears that the OpenZFS compile from source worked on my Ubuntu 22.04
>> for ZFS 2.2.2 and it still works after the recent kernel update. My package
>> manager is reporting ZFS 2.2.2-1 and zfs-dkms 2.2.2-1 installed. There is
>> no zsys, zfsutils-linux nor zfs-initramfs installed, but I'm not going to
>> be running ZFS on root anyway. Might look into a BTRFS mirror for root
>> instead.
>> Yes, I know that the maintainers of Ubuntu 22.04 have an upgrade to
>> 2.1.14 on their schedule, but who knows how long that could take? I'm a bit
>> paranoid about getting data trashed, even though I know this is an old bug.
>> If it can fail, it usually fails on my watch. I'm going to try this again
>> from the top on another system.
>> I'll keep you posted on my adventures in ZFS.
>> Thanks,
>> Phil
>>
>> On Fri, Dec 8, 2023 at 2:00 AM Phil Marsh <microcraftx at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Stephen,
>>> I probably could run the "make install" ZFS version in a chroot if I
>>> really wanted badly to use ZFS 2.1.14 prior to Ubuntu including it in their
>>> updates?
>>> That way, the installation wouldn't mess up the OS. But then, I bet
>>> you'd have to bind the mount directory in the chroot. Sounds like more
>>> trouble than it's worth.
>>> Thanks,
>>> Phil
>>>
>>> On Thu, Dec 7, 2023 at 4:02 PM Stephen Warren <
>>> swarren-tag-list-nclug at wwwdotorg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 12/7/23 15:23, Phil Marsh wrote:
>>>> > Also another question.
>>>> > The method I proposed to build and install ZFS 2.2.2 in my previous
>>>> > email apparently leaves out the following: at least I don't see them
>>>> in
>>>> > the installed packages in synaptic.
>>>> > zfs-dkms
>>>> > zfs-initramfs
>>>> > zfs-zed
>>>> > zfsutils-linux
>>>> > Perhaps those are installed, sidestepping apt package manager, via
>>>> > sudo make install; sudo 1dconfig; sudo demod
>>>>
>>>> I would personally avoid running "make install" as root for any SW on a
>>>> system that has an OS-supplied package manager. If you do so, then want
>>>> to remove the installed files, or install an OS package that contains
>>>> those files, e.g. if Ubuntu updates their ZFS, or you find a PPA that
>>>> supplies the version you need, you will be unhappy.
>>>>
>>>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <https://lists.nclug.org/pipermail/nclug/attachments/20231208/d2769574/attachment.htm>