Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Thu, 20 Dec 2018 11:58:03 +0000
From:      Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
To:        Bob Bishop <rb@gid.co.uk>, Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org>
Cc:        freebsd-current <freebsd-current@freebsd.org>, freebsd-fs <freebsd-fs@freebsd.org>
Subject:   Re: The future of ZFS in FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <e74fdc25-a120-786e-030a-bcb8a5ef53c5@multiplay.co.uk>
In-Reply-To: <B527B90E-9C5E-4DC5-8DE5-35A85221BA64@gid.co.uk>
References:  <CAPrugNriggEMMnLTZtf6xNQNYajBYNMnGdN96-ejDYQonoOhgw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHEMsqbhdcy1GKznVhxKAqCabYHvm_G9oxQR6eQrJ372215E0w@mail.gmail.com> <CAPrugNpr1YCo%2Br%2BCCts-uEfdU-nOF6-g15eqODJa_nKia_PwWw@mail.gmail.com> <CAHEMsqaJERWM_HpD4ru8Jj6QhVEb_CoOotzH1oPuYa95AoqWeA@mail.gmail.com> <CAPrugNpU2nnyuxetwvgeHXVNKRiDMk3uO-0OSBZ5nK55PKpY8A@mail.gmail.com> <B527B90E-9C5E-4DC5-8DE5-35A85221BA64@gid.co.uk>

next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help


On 20/12/2018 11:03, Bob Bishop wrote:
> Hi,
>
>> On 19 Dec 2018, at 23:16, Matthew Macy <mmacy@freebsd.org> wrote:
>>
>> On Wed, Dec 19, 2018 at 15:11 Steven Hartland <killing@multiplay.co.uk>
>> 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



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?e74fdc25-a120-786e-030a-bcb8a5ef53c5>