The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

[Steven Hartland]

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