[evanjrowley]

Without looking at the Sylve docs, I'll conjecture that it has deeper integration with ZFS. With a foundation on FreeBSD, there is a likelihood Sylve can support ZFS-on-root rollbacks better than hacking it into Proxmox. A rollback capability is why I'm looking for Proxmox alternatives. In the Linux world, Talos Linux and IncusOS provide A/B updates which achieve a similar rollback capability. With something based on FreeBSD, your "immutable" OS and all of it's data can be treated equally as ZFS datasets. There's also a higher risk that a Linux kernel update will break ZFS.

[justsomehnguy]

> Sylve can support ZFS-on-root rollbacks better than hacking it into Proxmo

Can you explain your use case when you absolutely can't provide a separate M.2 drive solely for the OS?

[evanjrowley]

Regardless of the number of drives available, you gain an advantage when your file system can leverage snapshots to roll backwards or forwards. There are other Linux-native filesystems that can provide this capability too, but many admins prefer ZFS because the full range of capabilities is unparelleled.

[Havoc]

Perhaps I'm missing your point, but proxmox+lxc on zfs storage works fine in proxmox? If just looks like any other storage in proxmox and on commandline you've got all the usual zfs tools

[mbreese]

I think it comes down to the standard argument against ZFS on linux -- uncertainty. It works *now*. Will it continue to work? Will any upstream changes in the Linux kernel cause issues with the ZFS modules bolted on top?

It is unlikely for there to be issues with ZFS and Linux. It's too common now, but it's not included in the main Linux tree, so it's not explicitly tested.

So, it's a low risk, but not zero risk.

More to the point here, when working with FreeBSD, ZFS is a first-class citizen (moreso even), so working with it *should* be more integrated with a FreeBSD solution than Proxmox, but how much more (and is that meaningful) is probably a qualitative feel than quantitative fact.

[evanjrowley]

I'm talking about this, basically: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/*bsd-17/howto-zfs-m...

There have since been implementations for Linux but no distribution is designed to support them.

[unethical_ban]

Sounds like tooling and ease of use, integration with the overlay.

[justsomehnguy]

... and with a separate drive (or even partition) you can just use the LVM snapshots with an any file system.

[h4kunamata]

See, people get things mixed and blame the tool.

Folks using TrueNAS or unRAID for backup instead of safe keeping, and then get mad when everything goes sideways and the data is gone. Your NAS must have a backup elsewhere, snapshot and what not won't save you if everything goes RIP.

ZFS is redundancy and redundancy only, but people see ZFS as some sort of backup. That is silly and wrong.

>A rollback capability is why I'm looking for Proxmox alternatives.

Your VMs and LXC container should have an automated backup. Proxmox itself takes a second to clean install it.

I had to change the motherboard and had to literraly install Proxmox 9.1 from scratch. BUT.... before doing that, I checked the LXC backups sent to a TrueNAS spool in mirror for safe keeping.

Reinstalled Proxmox, mounted the NFS share on Proxmox and voila, all the LXC containers were restored and started like nothing happened.

[evanjrowley]

As a Proxmox Backup Server user... I still want ZFS roots with native rollback support. FreeBSD is more likely to execute this well vs. Proxmox.

I'm talking about this, basically: https://www.linuxquestions.org/questions/*bsd-17/howto-zfs-m...

There have since been implementations for Linux but no distribution is designed to support them.