Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Abusive op problem on #pfsense@freenode

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Off-Topic & Non-Support Discussion
    5 Posts 3 Posters 458 Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • F
      foxide
      last edited by foxide

      I do not at all understand how having reasonable opinions regarding ZFS is considered trolling, here. If MTecknology is 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
      
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • S
        sheptard
        last edited by

        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?

        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • F
          foxide
          last edited by

          Yeah, and I'm still +q'd. Whoever actually runs that channel needs to handle him. Power-tripping ops drag things down pretty fast.

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • ?
            A Former User
            last edited by A Former User

            This has been handled. MTecknology is no longer an op, and @foxide has been unquieted.

            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
            • F
              foxide @A Former User
              last edited by foxide

              @mspears Thanks for helping out, really appreciate it.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • First post
                Last post
              Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.