The future of ZFS in FreeBSD

Steven Hartland killing at
Thu Dec 20 11:57:56 UTC 2018

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

With anything like this there is always a risk, so we all need a 
concerted effort to get to one solution.


More information about the freebsd-current mailing list