From owner-freebsd-fs@freebsd.org Thu Dec 20 11:57:56 2018 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-fs@mailman.ysv.freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2610:1c1:1:606c::19:1]) by mailman.ysv.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id ABF3313431C8 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:56 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: from mail-ed1-x542.google.com (mail-ed1-x542.google.com [IPv6:2a00:1450:4864:20::542]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (Client CN "smtp.gmail.com", Issuer "Google Internet Authority G3" (verified OK)) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTPS id CD768753A6 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:55 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from killing@multiplay.co.uk) Received: by mail-ed1-x542.google.com with SMTP id g22so1488653edr.7 for ; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 03:57:55 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=multiplay-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com; s=20150623; h=subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date:user-agent :mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding:content-language; bh=q/IVkfXVjGSGbH41787peBsjZ0SwQ15XqaAT+t9Yxyk=; b=CDKdmYIleCmOl0Bw7gqat9RtOTmJN1p34fnU86dIpC4cd1c/QMzNj+faDWKoms98AM EwUif9SWBooEyuzH5ZAoQhyWnLYnXWDpD+lEnkAnD9/UyuKp9ngRKrO7XPVhILG3ZOXM FOpEgo+iQlKQvOeZjqAf87vIacEQoIbJOMVOAzeDq62PDAv3HYD0/IFY4kCOnzZQU7PS ssjnm//Pi2/xr9i/pp8r+ktrA0qP3RFLQ0uiK+EBxBHYCQqHhJOSBR5DsO5AgEYk/C8F 3Yhwt+BfsOSsHnCChCKxTsM1FojjhPNpiCasRI7c6MzG+0WYULaD6BSMJEcS6DnsxiX2 Lasg== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20161025; h=x-gm-message-state:subject:to:cc:references:from:message-id:date :user-agent:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-transfer-encoding :content-language; bh=q/IVkfXVjGSGbH41787peBsjZ0SwQ15XqaAT+t9Yxyk=; b=CPsgU4LfIm+IULDCraAvaCyNc9m+yOLcu9UxDTW1zSReH4JubMteB7N6QtXKI7n21x /rOqTn6DQhogb04JAuoK7xZTY4VE45D6pDgtETQxTsfMxGkd6jTmWM+Wuje2p/2wpteL f4mjjr340Ege5uDaqZwV5h09xR1YeWSCCdeICFIWPDHWslAmAOGFybuQRDgstHjnAjuK euV1W67oKT6nm8sgnona2LO1iRECfRsHcIR5TlHgjJXeN1xYaGF9f8TZ6CWNofjkmQlW mExE2e2+acR0eqahW+SQQKDDsFR94afeLO878hhbdzEOM1bO529Q8uCjBW3am9wl18wu MHzA== X-Gm-Message-State: AA+aEWahkCDS4/qsBzNILDeVG6yy2TDrtNf/gFbjv2a/nUGSnQWowlrb 2P67Vf2eCCPcDEeE5K9o9Q5KIN9f5/g= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AFSGD/XJEKnHDAwbrVuDFaUHxuDtptT/+HjSRsGJIgzXvcBPLoL8SsMEIWsZ1ktbqy6QcfrMDDSWcQ== X-Received: by 2002:a17:906:55a:: with SMTP id k26-v6mr19490110eja.218.1545307074354; Thu, 20 Dec 2018 03:57:54 -0800 (PST) Received: from [10.44.128.75] ([161.12.40.153]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id e35sm6191762eda.13.2018.12.20.03.57.53 (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128/128); Thu, 20 Dec 2018 03:57:53 -0800 (PST) Subject: Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD To: Bob Bishop , Matthew Macy Cc: freebsd-current , freebsd-fs References: From: Steven Hartland Message-ID: Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:58:03 +0000 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 10.0; WOW64; rv:60.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/60.3.3 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Language: en-US X-Rspamd-Queue-Id: CD768753A6 X-Spamd-Bar: ---- Authentication-Results: mx1.freebsd.org; dkim=pass header.d=multiplay-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com header.s=20150623 header.b=CDKdmYIl; spf=pass (mx1.freebsd.org: domain of killing@multiplay.co.uk designates 2a00:1450:4864:20::542 as permitted sender) smtp.mailfrom=killing@multiplay.co.uk X-Spamd-Result: default: False [-4.04 / 15.00]; ARC_NA(0.00)[]; RCVD_VIA_SMTP_AUTH(0.00)[]; R_DKIM_ALLOW(-0.20)[multiplay-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com:s=20150623]; NEURAL_HAM_MEDIUM(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; FROM_HAS_DN(0.00)[]; RCPT_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[4]; R_SPF_ALLOW(-0.20)[+ip6:2a00:1450:4000::/36]; NEURAL_HAM_LONG(-1.00)[-1.000,0]; MIME_GOOD(-0.10)[text/plain]; PREVIOUSLY_DELIVERED(0.00)[freebsd-fs@freebsd.org]; DMARC_NA(0.00)[multiplay.co.uk]; RCVD_COUNT_THREE(0.00)[3]; TO_MATCH_ENVRCPT_SOME(0.00)[]; TO_DN_ALL(0.00)[]; DKIM_TRACE(0.00)[multiplay-co-uk.20150623.gappssmtp.com:+]; MX_GOOD(-0.01)[cached: ASPMX.L.GOOGLE.COM]; RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE(0.00)[2.4.5.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.2.0.0.4.6.8.4.0.5.4.1.0.0.a.2.list.dnswl.org : 127.0.5.0]; NEURAL_HAM_SHORT(-0.97)[-0.974,0]; IP_SCORE(-0.55)[ip: (0.34), ipnet: 2a00:1450::/32(-1.61), asn: 15169(-1.41), country: US(-0.08)]; FROM_EQ_ENVFROM(0.00)[]; MIME_TRACE(0.00)[0:+]; RCVD_TLS_LAST(0.00)[]; ASN(0.00)[asn:15169, ipnet:2a00:1450::/32, country:US]; MID_RHS_MATCH_FROM(0.00)[] X-BeenThere: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 Precedence: list List-Id: Filesystems List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:57:56 -0000 On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote: > Hi, > >> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy wrote: >> >> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland >> wrote: >> >>> Sorry been off for a few weeks so must have missed that, please do prod me >>> on again if you don’t see any response to anything not just this. Like many >>> others I get so may emails across so many lists it’s more than likely I >>> just missed it. >>> >>> That said would you say that with the right support we can make progress >>> on the this prior to the port? I have to ask as the alternative version has >>> been on the cusp for many years now so it’s feels more like a distant >>> memory than something that may happen, no disrespect to anyone involved, as >>> I know all too well how hard it can be to get something like this over the >>> line, especially when people have competing priorities. >>> >> I am hoping that it's sufficiently important to FreeBSD ZFS developers that >> they'll give the PR the attention it needs so that it can be merged before >> summer. My understanding is that it's mostly suffered from neglect. TRIM is >> most important to FreeBSD and it already had its own implementation. >> >> https://github.com/zfsonlinux/zfs/pull/5925 > Please correct me if I’m wrong but this looks a lot less mature than FreeBSD’s existing TRIM support for ZFS which we’ve had in production for six years. > > What is the rationale here? I’m concerned that it looks like an opportunity for mighty regressions. > This is the case, but overall this solution is thought to be a better approach. With anything like this there is always a risk, so we all need a concerted effort to get to one solution.     Regards     Steve