Abusive op problem on #pfsense@freenode
I do not at all understand how having reasonable opinions regarding ZFS is considered trolling, here. If
MTecknologyis going to have
+o, then he needs a refresher in how to properly use it.
16:48 <foxide> there is no reason to use zfs unless you're trying to do raid 16:49 <foxide> For a single disk, especially on something small, zfs is a complete waste. 16:49 <dmcc> Oh really? I though ZFS was more tolerant to power loss etc 16:49 <foxide> No, they're both about the same in single disk scenarios. UFS is journalled and pretty damn robust. [snipped unrelated chatter] 17:45 <zapotah> also, single disk zfs is useless 17:45 <peerce> not completely, it has snapshots 17:45 <zapotah> pfft 17:45 <[R]> well, you get to say you use the zed file system... 17:45 <peerce> and all the datasets on the single idsk pool share freespace so you don't run out of room in one when you have plenty of room in another 17:46 <zapotah> i dont trust online snapshots for anything more than data retention 17:46 <peerce> freenas uses them on the boot volume before updating, so each previous version is saved as a snapshot 17:46 <zapotah> and if theres a db involved, not even for that 17:47 <peerce> zfs snapshots are truly atomic, and work great with databases 17:49 <zapotah> peerce: dbs and block/filesystem snapshots are not a good combo 17:49 <zapotah> ever 17:50 <zapotah> there is nothing that will change my mind on that 17:50 <foxide> The only way to achieve an atomic snapshot is to quiesce the entire filesystem. No fucking thank you. 17:51 <foxide> Maybe for a desktop or something, but not for a live system with anything I care about. 17:51 <peerce> zfs is copy-on-write 17:51 <peerce> its not copying anything when it takes a snapshot, justt setting a transaction marker 17:51 <foxide> I am abundantly aware of what ZFS is. 17:51 * MTecknology groans 17:52 <peerce> I started testing zfs when it first came out with Solaris 10 update 1, and by Update 4 had converted all my Sun stuff to using it exclusively. 17:52 <foxide> cool story, bro 17:52 <peerce> that was like 10+ years ago, never had a zfs system crash on me short of catastrophic hardware failure 17:52 <foxide> anecdata 17:53 -- Mode #pfsense [+o MTecknology] by ChanServ 17:53 <zapotah> zfs is truly resilient when done right 17:53 <foxide> Oh, absolutely. But its not a panacea. 17:53 <@MTecknology> foxide: Do you have something useful to contribute or are you just trolling? 17:53 <zapotah> not quite ceph but its good 17:54 <zapotah> but as a simple and low level data integrity retaining solution, its good 17:54 <zapotah> i dont value the other features of it to any real degree tbh 17:55 <foxide> MTecknology: Excuse me? Not sure why you're popping off at me, I haven't said anything inaccurate. 17:55 <@MTecknology> 22:53 < foxide> Oh, absolutely. But its not a panacea. 17:55 <@MTecknology> 22:52 < foxide> anecdata 17:55 <foxide> I was responding to 17:53 <zapotah> zfs is truly resilient when done right 17:56 <@MTecknology> Again... share something useful or stop trolling. 17:56 <zapotah> and hes not incorrect :P 17:56 <foxide> The fuck is your problem? 17:56 <@MTecknology> zfs has issues, but this is just garbage statements 17:56 <mybalzitch> foxide: just MTecknology flexing 17:56 <foxide> Oh, sorry, didn't realize Oracle paid you. 17:56 -- Mode #pfsense [+q foxide!*@*] by MTecknology 17:56 <@MTecknology> fuck off twat 17:57 <@MTecknology> I do not like zfs, but I'm not going to entertain trolling 17:57 -- Mode #pfsense [-o MTecknology] by ChanServ
yeah, MTecknology loves to bust out the ban hammer very frequently depending on their mood. I'm not sure why the employee(s) in IRC ever gave this person power, he doesn't handle it well, maybe they thought they'd be better than nothing?
Yeah, and I'm still
+q'd. Whoever actually runs that channel needs to handle him. Power-tripping ops drag things down pretty fast.
This has been handled. MTecknology is no longer an op, and @foxide has been unquieted.
@mspears Thanks for helping out, really appreciate it.