Moby VS zfs

Having been featured in our February 2023, and January 2024 Release Radars, Moby is the original Linux Container runtime. This new version adds a bunch of changes to the Docker CLI and Moby itself with additional features. There's bug fixes and enhancements, with the main thing for users to be on the look out for containers that were created using Docker Engine 25.0.0. These containers might have duplicate MAC addresses, and thus must be recreated. The same goes for those containers created with Moby 25.0+ and with user defined MAC addresses. Read up on all these changes in the release notes.

Formlabs does this as well for their 3d printers, my earliest encounter of this was when Docker started getting popular: https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/master/pkg/namesgenerator/...

Try to use moby instead since that is the engine in Docker.

https://github.com/moby/moby

> Podman is designed to help with this by providing stronger default security settings compared to Docker. Features like rootless containers, user namespaces, and seccomp profiles, while available in Docker, aren't enabled by default and often require extra setup.

Seccomp has been enabled by default since 2015: https://github.com/moby/moby/pull/18780

It is true that Rootless isn't enabled by default but its "extra setup" can be done with a single command (`dockerd-rootless-setuptool.sh install`)

Perhaps.

Thing is, https://github.com/moby/moby/blob/670bc0a46c4ca03b75f1e72f73... is using https://github.com/mistifyio/go-zfs which features code like `out, err := zfsOutput("get", "-H", key, d.Name)` (Source: https://github.com/mistifyio/go-zfs/blob/master/zfs.go#L315) to get a single zfs property.

Somebody chose to use a library as abstraction that looks good but is implemented as a MVP (nothing wrong with that). "In the future, we hope to work directly with libzfs" should have raised an alarm somewhere, though.

Be careful if you use ZFS-on-root, make sure not to snapshot bpool or it will brick your system and require a complete reinstall.

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/13873

> The only non-junk PCIe3 option that's even advertised here recently is the overpriced WD Red SN700.

Those WD drives seem to have some real issues, at least with ZFS and btrfs. :(

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/discussions/14793

IMO the "next fs" is just zfs. They somewhat recently merged RAIDZ expansion feature https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/12225 and make regular improvements. If no file system has what you need today, zfs will probably be the first one to have it "tomorrow," imo.

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/15526#issuecomment-181...

> zpool get all tank | grep bclone

> kc3000 bcloneused 442M

> kc3000 bclonesaved 1.42G

> kc3000 bcloneratio 4.30x

> My understanding is this: If the result is 0 for both bcloneused and bclonesaved then it's safe to say that you don't have silent corruption.

A couple years ago, I had an idea for convincing a filesystem to go faster using 2 compression steps instead of one. I couldn't see why it wouldn't work, and I also couldn't convince myself it should.

It seems to have worked out. [1]

[1] - https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/commit/f375b23c026aec00cc9527...

https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/issues/7631

This is a long-standing issue with zvols which affects overall system stability, and has no real solution as of yet.