From owner-freebsd-hackers@FreeBSD.ORG Mon Mar 23 18:34:26 2009 Return-Path: Delivered-To: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org Received: from mx1.freebsd.org (mx1.freebsd.org [IPv6:2001:4f8:fff6::34]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id E2DFB106566C; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:34:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@young-alumni.com) Received: from mail.oldschoolpunx.net (cpe-72-177-10-243.austin.res.rr.com [72.177.10.243]) by mx1.freebsd.org (Postfix) with ESMTP id AAE668FC12; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:34:26 +0000 (UTC) (envelope-from chris@young-alumni.com) Received: by mail.oldschoolpunx.net (Postfix, from userid 58) id D96FA96E54; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:18:05 -0500 (CDT) Received: from [192.168.8.100] (unknown [192.168.8.100]) by mail.oldschoolpunx.net (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 340AB96DBB; Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:12 -0500 (CDT) Message-Id: <9DCF097D-421A-4F5F-8A48-D0286551C62C@young-alumni.com> From: Chris Ruiz To: freebsd-fs@freebsd.org, freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org In-Reply-To: <5f67a8c40903161109le12b8afuc25b8c1ec1b6f70c@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed; delsp=yes Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Mime-Version: 1.0 (Apple Message framework v930.3) Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 13:14:10 -0500 References: <78cb3d3f0903151209r46837d70m914a23e30a19060e@mail.gmail.com> <4AE4493D5E9141E8812E4BC83FB5A2A5@PegaPegII> <5f67a8c40903161109le12b8afuc25b8c1ec1b6f70c@mail.gmail.com> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.930.3) Cc: Subject: Re: ETA for ZFS v. 13 Merge From HEAD ? X-BeenThere: freebsd-hackers@freebsd.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5 Precedence: list List-Id: Technical Discussions relating to FreeBSD List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , X-List-Received-Date: Mon, 23 Mar 2009 18:34:27 -0000 On Mar 16, 2009, at 1:09 PM, Zaphod Beeblebrox wrote: > On Sun, Mar 15, 2009 at 6:39 PM, Pegasus Mc Cleaft > wrote: > >> Hi Adrian, >> >> I am not sure, but I didnt think ZFS 13 was ever going to be >> merged into >> 7-stable. I thought the kernel memory requirements were to great >> (just going >> back in my memory on that one). Also, I think there are still a few >> bugs >> left with the zil being enabled (and/or prefetch) causing lockups >> on machine >> with a lot of IO. I know I have hit that bug a few times on my >> machine when >> using various torrent clients when they want to preallocate large >> amounts of >> diskspace. >> >> I personally cant wait until a later version of ZFS is imported that >> supports encryption. I can finally say good-bye to our GEOM ELI USB >> drives >> for backups!! Never the less, I am quite thankfull to thoes >> involved in >> porting V13 to FreeBSD. Its a wonderfull improvement and my FS of >> choice >> when installing on new machines (especially zfs boot) > > > I think that you're touching on two entirely separate points here... > What it > takes to upgrade ZFS in -STABLE and what it takes to bring ZFS > modules in to > FreeBSD. > > I sincerely hope that ZFSv13 is planned for -STABLE. Last we left > this > issue, testing and a few kernel improvements were in the way. None > of the > kernel improvements were going to change the API, so the project was > doable > in -STABLE. That said, time marches on, 8.0-RELEASE draws ever > nearer. > When we were still several years out on 8.0 and ZFS was causing me > more > problems, I was much more keen to push for the port. I would still > welcome > it with open arms, but I'm not convinced that anyone is going to > push it > forward. > > The issue of encryption (along with many other issues) is tied to the > ability of FreeBSD to compile and use ZFS modules. Just like netgraph > modules extend the function of netgraph.ko and geom modules extend > the base > geom function, ZFS is designed (in Solaris, at least) to take > modules. ZFS > encryption is a module. I'm not clear on compression --- it would > make > sense that it is a module, but it seemingly got copied into FreeBSD > as a > core feature (and it may also be so in solaris). > > Anyways... is there any plans to allow for ZFS modules in FreeBSD? AFAIK ZFS v13 requires changes to the kernel that would break the ABI, which is not allowed to change in a STABLE branch. With 8.0 coming within the next 6 months, I doubt that 7 will see a new version of ZFS. There are no problems running ZFS v13 with zil and prefetch enabled and I have not had any predictable out of kernel memory panics. For me, ZFS on CURRENT really is *that* much better. Also, OpenSolaris has yet to integrate ZFS on disk encryption into their source. The code is currently under review: http://opensolaris.org/os/project/zfs-crypto/ . OpenSolaris uses ZFS v14 now and on disk encryption will probably be synced to a newer version of ZFS, meaning that this would require another code sync with OpenSolaris. Chris